1

2
 COPYRIGHT

Third edition published in UK

Copyright © Fred Harding
Tekline Publishing

June 2014

All rights reserved. Except for review, no part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher,
nor be circulated in writing of any publisher, nor be otherwise circulated
in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published
without a similar condition including this condition, being imposed on
the subsequent purchaser.

3
 PICTURE CREDITS AND DISCLAIMER
Unless stated otherwise, the photos and artwork in this book were
created by the author, including some he himself has modelled. Such
pictures belong to Fred Harding and are copyright.

Third Party Photos and Drawings are acknowledged, permissions

obtained and credits referenced. Some pictures originate from public
domain or out of copyright sources.

Quotations referred to in this book are permitted under copyright law

and "Fair Use" where a "reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original
work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes
of fair and reasonable criticism."

Reviews, commentary and criticism are highly protected under

copyright law. The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was
created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting,
research and education about copyrighted works without the permission
of the author.

With regard to pictures, "If you're using the images for the purposes of
criticism or commentary, then it's usually Fair Use and you can use the
images. For example, posting a picture of a cereal box alongside a review
of that cereal would qualify as Fair Use of the image." Screenshot
thumbnails (smaller regions of the main), also qualify as Fair Use.

4
 To my
Mother
Frances Harding
whose encouragement and support
made this book possible.

5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is the third edition of my book and it has been proofread by

professional proof readers, sections have been rewritten or re-edited for
improved clarity, additional supporting material has been inserted,
extensive electronic spelling and grammar checking has been carried out
paragraph by paragraph, duplicate words removed and new pictures have
been added to enhance your reading experience.

In this endeavour I have especially been helped by Brian Gollop of

the University of New England in Australia, who volunteered his services
to proofread the book. This I gratefully accepted and I wish to thank him
and everyone else involved for making this edition possible, including my
friend and fellow author, Chip Green.

6
 CONTENTS

Picture Credits and Disclaimer

Dedication
Acknowledgements
Preface
Chapter 1 - Strange Bones Discovered
HUMAN BUT NOT HUMAN | IGNORED BY THE CHURCH
Chapter 2 - The Opening of Pandora's Box
THE CHURCH UNDER ATTACK | THE WAR FROM WITHIN | CATASTROPHISM - THE
STATUS QUO | UNIFORMITARIANISM | CUVIER VERSUS LAMARK | NATURAL
SELECTION DISCOVERED BY ACCIDENT | THE BOOK THAT CHANGED THE WORLD |
SAMUEL WILBERFORCE ENTERS THE FRAY
Chapter 3 - The Return of the Nephilim
THE BOOK OF ENOCH IN THE TIME OF CHRIST | JESUS KNEW THE BOOK OF
ENOCH | THE EARLY CHRISTIANS HONOURED THE BOOK | ARIUS RAISES A STORM
| THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA | THE TIDE TURNS IN FAVOUR OF ARIUS | THE RISE OF
THE ROMAN CHURCH | THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT | THE BOOK OF
ENOCH IS SUPPRESSED | THE DOMINATION ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH | THE
BOOK SURVIVES AGAINST ALL THE ODDS | THE GREAT TEMPATION |
REDISCOVERY
Chapter 4 - The Apeman Cometh
ENTER CHARLES LYELL | HUXLEY RAISES THE STAKES | THE DESCENT OF MAN |
THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SUPERMEN | THE MISSING LINK | JAVA MAN |
NEANDERTHAL BECOMES AN APEMAN | HEIDELBERG MAN | PILTDOWN MAN |
RHODESIAN MAN | NABRASKA MAN | THE APEMAN OF SOUTH AFRICA | STALIN'S
APEMAN ARMY | PEKING MAN
Chapter 5 - Out of Africa
LOUIS LEAKEY | OLDOWAY MAN | PLESIANTHROPUS TRANSVAALENIS |
PARANTHROPUS ROBUSTUS | PROCONSUL AFRICANUS | ZINJANTHROPUS |
CALICO MAN | HOMO HABILIS(OH 7) | HOMO RUDOLFENSIS (ER 1470)| LUCY
(AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS | RIVALRY BETRAYS LACK OF EVIDENCE |
TURKANA BOY (HOMO ERECTUS) | KENYANTHROPUS PLATYOPS | ARDI
(ARDIPITHECUS) | THE DEBATE CONTINUES
Chapter 6 - The Apemen that Never Were
THE 1960'S | MISLEADING PROPAGANDA | INCOMPETANCE AND DECEIT | THE
GRAND ILLUSION | OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE? | SAHELANTHROPUS
TCHADENSIS | MORE APES? | LUCY | BIPEDALITY MISCONCEPTIONS | CHASING
AFTER WIND
Chapter 7 - Ancestors, Apes or Humans?

7
AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSI | AND SO THE SHOW GOES ON | THE TOUMAI
SKULL | HOMO ERECTUS | JAVA MAN | PEKING MAN | TERNIFINE MAN | TURKANA
BOY | ARCHAIC HUMANS | SWANSCOMBE MAN | GALLY HILL MAN | STEINHAM
MAN | SOLO MAN | RHODESIAN MAN | APPRAISAL OF THE MARCH OF PROGRESS |
THE NAKED APE
Chapter 8 - Sorting Out the Mess
BBC HUMAN FAMILY TREE | NOVA HUMAN FAMILY TREE | SMITHSTONIAN
HUMAN FAMILY TREE | BERKELEY HUMAN FAMILY TREE | MARCH OF PROGESS
2010 | HOMO HABILIS | HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS | WILL THE REAL
HEILDELBERGENSIS STAND UP
Chapter 9 - The Truth About The Neanderthals
THE GREATEST DECEPTION OF THEM ALL | BRAINWASHING THE PUBLIC | THE
DECEPTION REVEALED | THEY WERE FAR FROM STUPID | THEIR BRAINS WERE
BIGGER | THEY DID MORE THAN GRUNT | THEY MAY HAVE BELIEVED IN THE
AFTERLIFE | THEY USED SOPHISTICATED TOOLS | A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
Chapter 10 - The Nephilim Were Giants. Wrong!
GENESIS 6:4 - IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES | GENESIS 6: 4 - IN THE SEPTUAGINT |
NUMBERS 13: 33 | THE GRASSHOPPER SYNDROME | THE BIBLICAL NEPHILIM
WERE NOT GIANTS | THE GIANTS IN ENOCH | THE GIGANTES
Chapter 11 - When The Glove Fits
OTHER BOOKS OF THE SERIES | CRO-MAGNONS | THE WATCHERS | THE WATCHERS = CRO-
MAGNONS | THE NEANDERTHALS | NEANDERTHALS = NEPHILIM | PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION
Chapter 12 - A Question of Time
THE QUATERNARY EXTINCTION EVENT | THREE ROCK TYPES | DATING METHODS
| DATING NEANDERTHALS | THE MAMMOTH SHOWS THE WAY | CARBON-14
DATING | THE C-14/C-12 RATIO | THE 1950 CALIBRATION FUDGE | TREE RING
DATING TO THE RESCUE | ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE | ANOMALIES GALORE
| AMS PROBLEMS | THE MAIN ASSUMPTION PROVEN WRONG | ABSOLUTE DATING
PAR EXCELLANCE | BIBLE CHRONOLOGY ACCURACY
Chapter 13 - Neanderthals Disappearance Solved
BEFORE THE FLOOD | THE COMING OF THE WATCHERS | THE CORRUPTING OF
MANKIND | AN APPEAL TO THE MOST HIGH | A PLAN IS REVEALED | JUDGEMENT
OF THE TWO HUNDRED | SENTENCES ARE PASSED | MYSTERY SOLVED | THE
IMPRISONED WATCHERS GET A VISITOR| SPIRITS OF THE NEPHILIM UNLEASHED
| THE FLOOD EXPLAINED | EPILOGUE | OTHER BOOKS OF THE SERIES
Appendix: The Book of Enoch (Watchers)
THE TRANSLATION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH (WATCHERS) FROM THE ETHIOPIAN
BY R.H. CHARLES, 1906 NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Notes and References

8
 PREFACE

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the
sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They
were the heroes of old, men of renown."
(Genesis 6:4: NIV)

The sages of old tell of a time when the earth was inhabited by three species of
man that coexisted with one another. First there was man who from the dust of
the ground he was created by the ONE called God. Man was then tasked to be
custodians of the Earth, to take care of it and to spread their kindred throughout
the world.

Then God sent representatives of his heavenly domain where living energies
waxed and waned to observe humanity, to lend a helping hand when necessary
but given the prime directive not to interfere in the course of human
development. These were the Grigori meaning Watchers ("those who watch"). [1]

From time to time so the ancient scrolls say the Watchers were permitted to
visit their wards and observe and help them adapt to the conditions that they
faced. But to do this the Watchers took on human form [2] and in this guise they
experienced all the sensations that the physical world had to offer. They could
taste food, smell the fragrance of the flowers, hear the sounds of nature, and feel

9
 the warmth and gentle breezes upon their naked skin. But there was more to
flesh that they had not been prepared for, and it was not long before their bodies
sought more than sustenance.

As the Watchers mingled with humankind some of them became enamoured

by the beauty of women born of man and desire waxed great within their hearts.
For some of the Watchers desire turned to burning obsession and one of them,
Shernihaza (Samyaza) [3] was his name, became overwhelmed by thoughts of
sexual union with woman kind. But he was afraid for he feared retribution from
on high if he were to do what his heart desired. However, as he watched others of
his kind, he could see that some of them also shared his lustful intentions - for
that which dangled between their legs betrayed their thoughts.

So it was that in the days of Jared, [4] according to ancient writings, that two
hundred Watchers descended on Ardis, the summit of Mount Hermon equated
with the triple peak of Jebel esh Sheikh (9,200 feet), placed in the most northerly
region of ancient Palestine. Here they agreed to leave their heavenly realm, to
remain in their immortal physical forms and to become gods in this world, taking
wives as they wished from among humanity. Interestingly, it is from this very
mountain that it is said, many generations later, that Jesus the Son of God
ascended to heaven in the event commonly known as the Transfiguration. [5]

Shernihaza challenged the other Watchers to take an oath to stick with their
decision to remain on earth as he did not wish to take all the blame should their
act result in punishment. They all took the oath and descended the mountain to
take "as their wives any they chose". There are many legends of old that speak of
gods "coming down" and taking for themselves any woman they desired and
lorded over mankind whom they treated as their servants to do as they are bid.

So it was that some of the Watchers defiled themselves with women, and as a
consequence they could no longer return to their former place in the heavenly
realm from whence they had been created. The die was cast and there was no
turning back for them now. However, they remained immortal and could now
enjoy the pleasures of the flesh and all that the world could offer to satisfy their
sensual cravings for all eternity - or so they thought.

The Watchers inhabiting the tall bodies that they had created discovered that
they had made a dreadful mistake. For though they had been witnesses to the
creation of man, and they had taken the genetic blueprint for their own bodies
from what they had learned, their reproductive functions were flawed. So as
children were born of their union with women, some of them were not quite
human." And from this miscegenation, from this perversion, grotesque beings
emerged." [6] They were not like their fathers. These were the Nephilim. [7]

The renegade Watchers could do nothing but watch their children grow into
powerful and strong grotesque beings that were violent by nature and ill disposed
to all living things. The same Watchers became arrogant and added to their
crimes by gathering together mankind under their rule making them their

10
 servants. Their acts are recorded in the books of old and describe the time
when the human race was subjugated and oppressed by the Watchers who
became as gods to them.

Then one day the Watchers and Nephilim were gone and only
mankind remained. What happened?

As thousands of years passed memories of the Watchers and Nephilim faded

into myth and legend. Then over a hundred years or more ago rumours emerged
that a strange skull cap had been dug up by German miners in 1856 working at
the Feldhofer Grotto in the Neander valley. It looked somewhat human, but the
skull was remarkably thick and sported a massive brow ridge. It was excavated
alongside extinct cave bears and mammoths and so its antiquity was clearly
defined.

Alongside the skullcap dubbed "Neanderthal" after the name of the valley
where it was found, were two femora, three bones from the right arm, two from
the left arm, part of the left ilium and ribs. The workers who recovered this
material originally thought it to be the remains of a bear. They gave the material
to amateur naturalist Johann Carl Fuhlrott, who turned the fossils over to
anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen. The discovery was jointly announced in
1857.

Before long it was observed that the Neanderthal remains resembled the
finding of other strange skulls excavated in 1829 at Engis, Belgium and another
one at Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar in 1848. The evidence was beginning to pile up
that a race of humanoids unlike any people living had existed in the remote past.
Who or what were they? Nobody knew and so when news of two nearly perfect
Neanderthal like skeletons of a man and woman were uncovered at Spy in
Belgium in 1886 at the depth of 16 ft. with numerous Mousterian-type
implements, some scientists began to wonder if they might be evidence or
evolution as described in Darwin's "Origin of Species" published only a year
before.

Just as scientists were beginning to grapple with the problems that the
Neanderthal remains raised, news of a completely different discovery emerged.
Not far from the Spy Neanderthal site, the remains of three adult males, one
adult female, and one infant was uncovered. However, these were not
Neanderthal skeletons. Found at the Cro-Magnon rock shelter at Les Eyzies,
Dordogne, France geologist Louis Lartet found that the skeletons showed the
same high forehead, upright posture and slender (gracile) skeleton as modern
humans. In fact as subsequent tests were to show the cranial capacity is
estimated at 1,600 cubic which is greater than modern humans. Furthermore,
Cro-Magnons as they were called were taller that their modern day counterparts.
This certainly 'put the cat among the pigeons'. There were now two distinct
species of archaic humans in addition to normal humans living together in the
same general area and at the same time.

11
 By the turn of the century the theory of evolution was now in vogue and the
idea of Creation as taught in church and schools had by then been relegated to
the realms of fantasy. The evolution of man was now regarded as a fact and when
another almost complete skeleton of Neanderthal man was discovered at the
Chapelle-aux-Saints in 1908, it seemed to be the final proof that evolutionists
wanted to support their theory.

Pro-evolutionist Pierre Marcellin Boule made sure that the world would have
no doubts that Neanderthal man was part of the evolutionary tree of man. He
arranged for an artist reconstruction of the Neanderthal 'Man of Chapelle-Aux-
Saints' by Mr. Kupka for the Illustrated London News, in 1909. Concerning the
picture the newspaper boldly claimed that, "Our drawing can fairly claim to be
the first that has shown with any scientific certainty prehistoric man in his habits
as he lived". It was based upon a lie and deception. However, the damage was
done and this image of Neanderthal man being a brutish, hairy and ape like
creature has stuck with the popular conscious until quite recently when the truth
was finally revealed. More about this later.

Eventually, after a great deal of interpretation, misinterpretation, hoaxes and

all kinds of theories and retractions there was consensus. Neanderthals, Cro-
Magnons and early humans (Homo sapiens) all coexisted.

Then one day the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals were gone and
only Homo sapiens remained. What happened?

Déjà vu! Here we see what appears to be a remarkable coincidence. Ancient

writings talk about three kinds of people living together at one time and then two
disappear to leave only man to populate the earth with his kind. Then we find
that anthropologists unearthing the remains of three species of hominids who
had at one time coexisted and then two of them became extinct leaving only
Homo sapiens (modern man) to populate the planet.

Could it be that those beings dubbed Cro-Magnons may have in fact been the

12
 fabled "Watchers", the fallen angels described in the Bible who came to earth
and mated with human women? And, if this is true, can we not reason that the
results of their unnatural union resulted in hybrids the Nephilim, the same
beings that we call Neanderthals? This hypothesis is a truly compelling one as I
am sure the reader will agree and begs further investigation. Let us begin and see
what we can dig up - if you excuse the pun.

13
 Chapter 1
STRANGE BONES DISCOVERED

"In these general characters, the Neanderthal skull is at once observed to be

singularly different from all others which admittedly belong to the human
species; and they undoubtably invest it with a close resemberlance to that of the
young chimpanzee, represented by Busk in his translation of Shaaffhausen's
memoir."
(Professor William King)
(The Quarterly Journal of Science, 1864)

Our story begins in a small valley five kilometres to the east of Düsseldorf in
Germany. During the nineteenth century the valley was called Neandershöhle
(Neander's Hollow), and after 1850 Neanderthal (Neander Valley). It was named
after Joachim Neander, a seventeenth century German pastor who taught Latin
in nearby Düsseldorf and preached sermons in the valley.

Joachim Neander loved to visit the valley because it gave him the inspiration
for his compositions. The valley, a limestone canyon, was in his day a scenic
paradise overflowing with wild flowers, green pastures and woodland through
which the Dussel River flowed. The canyon was defined by walls that rose as high

14
 as 50 metres above the river and extended for slightly less than 1 km in an
east-west direction. Descriptions from the early nineteenth century note that
numerous caves and rock shelters of varying sizes were located along both the
north and south valley walls. The sounds of the river and waterfalls echoing in
the caves throughout the canyon gave the valley a mystique quality.

HUMAN BUT NOT HUMAN

Before the 1850s, the limestone in the Neander valley was only important for
local construction. However, by mid-decade the demands of the Prussian
construction industry required limestone in great quantities and so in 1854, two
entrepreneurs Wilhelm Beckershoff and Friedrich Wilhelm Pieper, founded a
company in the valley to facilitate the demands of the Prussian industries.

To supply limestone to their customers, Beckershoff and Pieper focused

quarrying operations on the south wall of the Neander Valley. As the limestone
was quarried, the south wall and much of the north wall, as well as the caves
located therein, were literally removed. When the caves were encountered, the
clay deposits within them had to be removed in order to reduce any
contamination of the limestone during actual quarrying. It was in one of these
caves in August 1856 that a remarkable discovery was made.

One of the smaller caves located on the south wall was known as the Kleine
Feldhofer Grotte, so named because of its proximity to the nearby large farm of
Feldhof. This small cave (3 m in width by 5 m in length by 3 m in height) had a
very small mouth (less than 1 m wide), which opened approximately 20 m above
the valley floor. The removal of clay deposits from the floor of the cave resulted in
the recovery of a skullcap, two femora, three bones from the right arm, two from
the left arm and part of the left ilium and ribs.

Since the bones had been found in the Neander valley, the strange skeleton
was dubbed Neanderthal man. Here is something spooky to think about. By a
strange quirk of fate the surname of Joachim Neander is also the Greek
translation of the pastor's family name Neumann - and Neander and Neumann
both have the meaning "NEW MAN". What are the odds that this name should be
applied later to the bones of a man thousands of years old that would end up to
be instrumental in bringing the creation account found in many ancient writings
into disrepute and open the way for an ungodly theory to take its place? This is
no strange coincidence! Dark forces were at work during this period of human
history to prepare the way for a great lie to be unleashed upon the world, as this
book will endeavour to show all in good time.

Although the exact detailed events of the discovery of this skeleton are not
known, the circumstances that led to the recovery of the original Neanderthal
skeleton were chronicled by local teacher and natural historian Johann Carl
Fuhlrott. [1]

15
 At Pieper's invitation, Fuhlrott perhaps two weeks after the specimens was
found was invited to visit the area to identify the bones. This was at the end of
August 1856. To the astonishment of everyone present, Fuhlrott identified the
bones as human although admittedly he said that they were very incomplete.

Fuhlrott later stated that because the bones were not considered to be of any
great importance at the time of recovery, the workers were not particularly
careful and collected only the larger easily identifiable bones. He said that the
bones were found about two feet below the surface, and that the skeleton was
originally oriented with the skull facing the cave opening. Because the clay matrix
adhered tightly to the individual bones, some of them, including the skullcap,
were recognised only after they had been thrown out of the cave and had fallen to
the valley floor below the cave and amongst the other discarded debris. [2]

Although the bones were clearly human there was something about them that
were not quite right. One thing was for certain though. The bones belonged to a
deceased person who was quite ancient. His remains had been found in deposits
similar to those where bones of cave bears and mammoths had been found in the
area.

It was clear to Fuhlrot that he needed to get expert opinion elsewhere and so
he turned over the bones to anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen (1816 - 1893),
Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bonn.

When the bones were examined by Schaaffhausen it became immediately clear

to him that he was looking at human bones but also there was something odd
about them. The skullcap for example was more elongated than usual and ended
with a thick brow ridge unlike anything that had been seen before. This was a
perplexing riddle. It was clear that the man, if he may be called a man, had lived
thousands of years ago but his head was larger than those of modern humans.

Baffled by what he saw Schaaffhausen came to the conclusion that the bones
must have belonged to a member of a tribe that had been displaced by the
ancestors of modern Germans. This explanation fitted well with accepted history
at the time, namely that Germany had been inhabited by a series of savage tribes.
Yet the skull was so different from modern humans that Schaaffhausen went a
step further, and stated that "the human bones from the Neanderthal exceed all
the rest in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to the conclusion of
their belonging to a barbarous and savage race." What he did not know was that
the barbarous and savage race of which he speculated were none other than those
of the Nephilim.

When the Neanderthal bones were seen by Rudolf Virchow (1821 - 1902) who
was the leading pathologist in life sciences of the day he came to the conclusion
that the bones were merely those of a man who had died suffering from a severe
case of rickets. A colleague of Schaaffhausen, fellow Bonn professor August
Mayer supported Virchow's conclusion but went further and suggested that the
remains were not only those of a sufferer of rickets but it was evident that his

16
 constant frowning from pain had formed the bony ridges above the eyes.
Today Mayer's hypothesis would be deemed laughable but in those days and
coming from an esteemed professor this idea was taken very seriously indeed.

The strange human bones found in the Neander Valley were not unique. There
had been reports of similar remains that had been excavated in 1829 at Engis,
Belgium and another one at Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar in 1848. However, at this
time Neanderthal man and the other relics remained an enigma, an interesting
curiosity yet to be explained.

IGNORED BY THE CHURCH

Nobody outside the scientific community gave the bones found in the Neander
valley much thought. Many scientists of the day were Christians and believed
implicitly in what the Church said about the origins of man and the supernatural
world of angels and demons but even they failed to grasp what the bones
signified. There was one Biblical scripture that might have given a clue as to what
the Neanderthal bones were and this could be found in the Book of Genesis.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they
bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of
old, men of renown. (Gen.6:4 KJB). [bold mine - giants = Nephilim]"

However, most theologians took Genesis at face value and believed that the
children born from the union of angels and women described in the Bible were
giants. Understandably then, as the bones found at the Neander valley could
hardly be described as such nobody in the Christian community took any notice.
This was a big mistake. It allowed Pandora's Box to be opened and to release on
an unsuspecting world all evil contained therein to spread over the earth. That
evil was the development of an atheistic theory on the origins of man that would
one day deceive the entire world and bring the creation account of the Bible into
disrepute. That theory was evolution.

17
 Chapter 2
THE OPENING OF PANDORA'S BOX

"The question is this -- Is man an ape or an angel? My Lord, I am on the side of

the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new fanged
theories."
(Benjamin Disraeli - British Prime Minister)

Pandora's Box was an artifact described in Greek mythology taken from the
myth of Pandora's creation in Hesiod's Works and Days. According to the story,
the supreme god Zeus ordered Hephaestus (Aphrodite's husband) to make him a
daughter. It was the first woman made out of clay and Hephaestus made her very
beautiful, naming her Pandora.

Zeus sent Pandora down to earth so that she could marry Epimetheus one of
two brothers who had angered Zeus for their support for humans, especially
Prometheus the other brother for giving people fire. Zeus wanted revenge and
through Pandora he saw an opportunity to bring this about. He therefore gave
Pandora a little box with a big heavy lock on it. He made her promise never to
open it and to give the key to her husband who too was not to open the box.

Zeus expected that Epimetheus' curiosity would get the better of him, and that
either Epimetheus or his brother would open the box. However, he forgot how
curious women could be and Pandora was no exception. So one night curiosity
got the better of his daughter so that when Epimetheus lay sleeping, she stole the
key and opened the box. As the lid of the box opened out flew every kind of evil
and although Pandora slammed the lid shut as quickly as she could it was too
late. The damage had been done and the world would not be the same again.

18
 As far as the present work is concerned when the Neanderthal bones were
found and not identified as belonging to the Nephilim, Pandora's box was in
effect opened. What happened next was the unleashing into the world of a
completely atheistic view for the origins of man, a theory that one day would
deceive many and bring destruction upon the gods of old. But not all was lost for
when Pandora hastily closed the box she heard a voice within calling her,
pleading to be let out. Persuaded by Epimetheus, Pandora opened the box again
and out fluttered the spirit of hope to follow and heal the world of its ills. The
book you are reading is that spirit of hope and through its pages the gods will rise
again from the ashes and will do battle with that which had almost destroyed
them - the theory of evolution.

THE CHURCH UNDER ATTACK

For a thousand years or more, the Christian religion had been championed by
the Catholic church whose dogma stated that the Bible should be read literally. In
some respects this was not unreasonable. For example, for centuries many people
believed that the Earth was flat but the Bible actually said that our world was
round. "Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from
the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is
he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:21-22) The Biblical
Hebrew word for "circle" (chuwg) can also mean "round" or "sphere." In this case
a literal interpretation of the scriptures proved accurate so that when explorers
such as Ferdinand Magellan (1480 - 1521) and Christopher Columbus (1451 -
1506) sailed across the seas in search of new lands, they knew that they would
not fall of the end of the world.

In addition the Bible said that the Earth floated on empty space. "He
stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon
nothing" (Job 26:7). And incredibly with the science understanding of the Big
Bang and the resulting expanding universe, there are sixteen scriptures which
refer to God stretching (expanding) out the heavens. So for the world of
astronomy the Bible did have something to say that was with accord with what
we now know now, but having said this, the scriptures were not written as a
treatise on science and it never claimed it was. Consequently, the Church took
upon itself to define its own set of beliefs or dogmas to explain the natural world
that were not to be found in the Bible and anybody challenging their "truths"
would be considered a heretic. (We see the same thing happening today, except
that it is the evolutionist scientists, the creators of the evolution theory of which I
have spoken, that are now creating the dogmas and anybody challenging them
are considered heretics - more of this later).

One of the Church dogmas not found in the scriptures was that the Earth was
the centre of the Universe. The Church's stand on the matter was based upon the
Almagest a second century mathematical and astronomical treatise on the
apparent motions of the stars and planetary paths. Written in Greek by Claudius

19
 Ptolemy (100?-170?), a Roman era scholar of Egypt, it is one of the most
influential scientific texts of all time, with its geocentric model accepted for more
than twelve hundred years from its origin in Hellenist Alexandria, in the
medieval Byzantine and Islamic worlds, and in Western Europe through the
Middle Ages and early Renaissance. For the Church in Rome it was Holy Writ so
when Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) postulated the idea that the Earth
revolved around the sun instead he was treading on very dangerous waters
indeed.

Copernicus' epochal book, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres

was published just before his death in 1543 and it is often regarded today as the
starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the
scientific revolution. Fortunately for Copernicus he died before the full wrath of
the Church could be brought to bear onto him. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was
not so lucky. He was burned at the stake as a heretic, for expanding upon what
Copernicus had said as well as suggesting that other stars may have worlds
revolving around them too.

Catholic doctrines replaced common sense within the Church of Rome. So

began what has become known as "The Religion vs Science" debate and this
would have serious consequences in the future. It was Galileo (1564 - 1642) who
became the next challenger to the centric views of Christianity, building upon the
work of Copernicus. Galileo was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer,
and philosopher and he was to play a major role in the scientific revolution that
was emerging from the Dark Ages. His achievements include improvements to
the telescope and consequent astronomical observations and for supporting what
Copernicus had said about the Earth revolving around the Sun, and not the other
way round. The rulers of the Church were not happy to find in their midst, in
Italy, a heretic with an enviable reputation. Consequently although Galileo
escaped being burnt at the stake he instead spent the remaining years of his life
(1634 - 1642) under close house arrest and he was labelled a dangerous maverick
to be avoided at all costs.

THE WAR FROM WITHIN

It did seem that any change in the status quo would be doomed to failure but
great changes were taking place within Christendom, which eventually would
allow reason to prevail in some circumstances. The Catholic Church and it's
bloated bureaucracy, perceived arrogance, avarice and abuses of power was
becoming a burden to great to bear.

It did seem that any change in the status quo would be doomed to failure but
great changes were taking place within Christendom, which eventually would
allow reason of sorts to prevail. The Catholic Church and it's bloated
bureaucracy, perceived arrogance, avarice and abuses of power was becoming a
burden to great to bear. There was widespread agreement that the church needed
to be reformed, to restore it to a purer and more accurate form. What was needed

20
 for mass change was a theologian/argument which could convince a mass of
both people and priests that they did not need the established church to save
them. Martin Luther was the first to present just such a challenge.

Martin Luther (1483 - 1546), who had been ordained as a priest in 1507, visited
Rome in 1510 on behalf of a number of Augustinian monasteries. When he
arrived at the seat of Catholic power, the Vatican, he was appalled to see the
corruption that he found there. He had already become increasingly angry about
the clergy selling "indulgences" the promised remission from punishments for
sin, either for someone still living or for one who had died and was believed to be
in purgatory, but the corruption he witnessed was the last straw! Returning to
Germany he was moved to speak out about what he saw as abuses of power and
misinterpretations of the scriptures. On 31 October 1517, he posted a document
on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg which was called the "Ninety-Five
Theses". It attacked papal abuses and the sale of indulgences.

Thanks to the printing press, Luther's writing of the "Ninety-Five Theses" was
published throughout Europe. His attacks on the wealth and corruption of the
papacy, and his belief that salvation would be granted on the basis of faith alone
rather than by works, caused a stir within the clergy and other priests joined the
fray sharing his views. Needless to say the papacy was not pleased when one of
their own had turned against their authority. In January 1521, Pope Leo X
excommunicated Luther who was then summoned to appear at the Diet of
Worms, an assembly of the Holy Roman Empire. Luther refused to recant and
Emperor Charles V himself a Catholic declared Luther an outlaw and a heretic.
However, by now it was too late because many clerics had joined the rebellion
and anti-Catholic Protestant movements were springing up all over Europe, with
a large following by the people.

Luther's translation of the Bible into German came next which occurred many
years later, while he was hiding from the church authorities at Wartburg, the
castle of Elector Frederick III of Saxony. This was a significant step forward
because, prior to the Bible being made available to the common people,
Christians relied almost entirely on church leaders to tell them what the Bible
said. For centuries, the Bible had been out of reach of most people and the only
copies that existed were in Latin, which most people could not read or
understand. It was left to the clergy who were educated in the Latin language to
mete out their own explanations and invent doctrines that were not actually
described in the Bible. Hence, indulgences were not scriptural but was a means
by which to extort money from people through their fear of Hell Fire in the
afterlife, another doctrine not endorsed by the Bible but taught by the Church.

Initially it appeared that the Reformation would sweep across all of Europe,
but the Catholic Church was able to regroup and fight back with deadly force.
Aided by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church was able
to reimpose Catholicism on large parts of Europe in the brutally destructive
Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). It was fought largely as a religious war between
Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire and involved most of the

21
 countries of Europe. Germany where the Reformation had begun suffered the
most with estimates putting the reduction of population in the German states at
about 25% to 40%.

Although the Catholic Church remained intact after the war the Protestant
Reformation altered the course of European and world history in a number of
different ways. This movement led to the eventual influence and demise of the
previously powerful Catholic Church. People were now able to worship God as
they believed and they no longer relied on the Catholic Church for guidance with
religious matters. This was good news for the growing science community.
Protestantism, in general, was more open to science than the Catholic Church
who still remained entrenched with their doctrines. At least people were not
burnt at the stake for having thoughts that conflicted with those doctrines.

Scientist philosophers, such as the Catholic René Descartes (1596-1650),

Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and John Ray (1627-1705), were open to reconcile
their religious beliefs and scientific research. They argued that the study of the
laws behind divine creation was not heretical, and here they met with some
success. Isaac Newton's (1643 - 1727) work signalled the first publicised challenge
to the Church. His belief that there was clockwork perfection behind the universe
became a landmark in physics. The first signs of a drifting apart of science and
religion had begun.

So far, scientific development has been discussed on the level of church and
science, but the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon heralded the first
major entry of politics into the equation. For the first time secularism became a
major part of the landscape, fuelling a rise in the prominence of science, and a
tolerance of all religions, repairing some of the damage caused during the
Reformation schism.

CATASTROPHISM - THE STATUS QUO

By the nineteenth century despite all the changes that were going on in science
the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) still dominated what people thought
about human origins. Although Protestantism may have curbed some of the
power of the Catholic Church, it had taken many of the doctrines associated with
origins of man as their own. So it was that at the beginning of the century most
Christians and majority of scientists who were also Christians still believed in the
literal interpretation of the Bible's account of Creation. In this it was believed
that the world and all living things had been created in six days, each according
to their kind. On the sixth day Adam and Eve were created by God as the pinnacle
of his creativity activities, after which on the seventh day he rested from his
labours. This was the prevailing belief of the day but that was about to change.

Many secular scientists, while sharing the belief in the Biblical account had
come to the conclusion that the earth had not been created in six twenty-four
hour days that was taught so rigorously in the churches. One of these was George

22
 Cuvier (1769-1832) who recognised that the earth was immensely old and it
was he who firmly established the fact of the extinction of past life forms. He
believed that for most of earth's history conditions had been more or less like
those of the present. However, periodic "revolutions", or catastrophes had
befallen the Earth; each one wiping out a number of species. Cuvier attributed
these "revolutions" as events with natural causes and the theory of Catastrophism
was born.

Cuvier had been right because the earth was indeed old and had suffered
numerous cataclysmic events during its long history that had changed the course
of life on this planet. One only has to look at the extinction of the dinosaurs to
prove his theory. A panel of 41 international experts in 2010 reviewed 20 years'
worth of research to determine the cause of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) mass
extinction, around 65 million years ago. The extinction wiped out more than half
of all species on the planet, including the dinosaurs, birdlike pterosaurs and large
marine reptiles, clearing the way for mammals to become the dominant species
on Earth. Their review of the evidence shows that the extinction was caused by a
massive asteroid or comet smashing into Earth at Chicxulub on Mexico's Yucatan
Peninsula. [1]

Cuvier was not alone with his beliefs. He was building upon the work of other
geologists such as William Smith (1769 - 1839) who like others saw in the
geological record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed
repeatedly by abrupt changes. Mountains were built in catastrophic
circumstances, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and
were replaced by new species. Giant tropical plants, for example, left their fossils
in northern Europe during the Carboniferous Period, never to be seen there
again. Discrete rock layers containing different fossils also reinforced the idea
that the Earth's history could be divided into ages marked by catastrophic
changes.

Many geologists such as Cuvier, William Buckland and William Smith saw in
the geological record a stormy epic, one in which our planet had been convulsed
repeatedly by abrupt changes. Although in some scientific circles it was becoming
apparent that earth's history could not fit into the "young earth" six twenty-four-
hour day time frame, these catastrophic events did suggest that they did have
some kind of intelligent direction. Hence, it was believed by some that God
supernaturally created all life over long ages of time, allowing early species to die
out and then created new species, "renewing the face of the ground" (Psalm
104:29-30). Other scientists however disagreed with this new understanding and
one of these was Sir Charles Lyell.

UNIFORMITARIANISM
Sir Charles Lyell (1797 - 1875) was a British lawyer and he would become the
foremost geologist of his day. He was a close and influential friend of Charles
Darwin who read and was much influenced by Lyell's Principles of Geology while

23
 aboard HMS Beagle during his famous voyages of discovery. Lyell had become
disenchanted when catastrophist scientists tried to link Catastrophism to the
Bible seeking evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's
flood.

Lyell had read the writings of James Hutton (1726 - 1797) who had argued that
the earth had been transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes as Cuvier and
his colleagues had maintained but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which
we could be seen taking place today. Rain eroded mountains, while molten rock
pushed up by volcanic activity created new ones. Eroded sediments formed into
layers of rock, he said, which could later be lifted above sea level, tilted by the
force of the uprising rock, and eroded away again. These changes were tiny it was
true, but given enough time, Hutton argued, they could produce vast changes.
This concept rang a chord of truth with Lyell and he set out to prove it.

Hutton had speculated that millions of years would have been required to
shape the earth into its contemporary form. His theory became known as
Uniformitarianism and can be summarised by the phrase "the present is the key
to the past." Unfortunately, Hutton was not very good at getting his new
geological theory across to the scientific community. Hence, while Hutton's paper
of 1785 suggested an entirely new theory of geomorphology (the study of land
forms and their development), it was Charles Lyell who was able to build upon
what Hutton had suggested. As a result through the publication of his famous
book, "Principles of Geology" published in 1830 Lyell was able to popularise
the concept of Uniformitarianism far better than Hutton could ever do.

When Darwin went on his voyages which would eventually lead to his theory of
evolution through natural selection, the book he read with great enthusiasm was
Lyell's book. It provided the considerable time he needed to prove his own theory
of biological evolution, without which his theory would have fallen at the first
hurdle.

Today, not only do we know that Uniformitarianism does take place we also
know that the earth has been rocked by catastrophic events too. These events
have transformed the face of the planet and include asteroid impacts, mega
earthquakes, comet collisions, super volcanoes and gigantic floods. It is ironic
therefore that both groups of scientists - Catastophists and Uniformitarianists -
had fought vigorously and bitterly against each other when both parties had been
right all along!

It is beyond the mandate of this present work to go over the evidence that the
earth was hoary with age and had not been created in six twenty-four days. I shall
do this with another book to be published after this one called Creation
Revisited: Science and Religion Reconciled, the second book of this series, to be
published in 2015 if not before.

24
 Besides what is written in the Bible multiple independent evidences confirm
an ancient earth, including forty different methods of radiometric dating and
numerous non-radiometric measurements: Ice core samples from Antarctica and
Greenland provide an unbroken record of annual ice layers spanning the past
800,000 years. Annual tree ring records provide a continuous record of the past
15,000 years. Coral reefs record long ages of growth (Eniwetok Reef 140,000
years, and the Grand Bahama Reef 790,000 years).

At the same time the reader should also be aware that there have been at least
five mass extinction events throughout earth's history that we know of. These
include the following:

 1. The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the
Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both
terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
 2. 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that
had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the
world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
 3. The fossil record of the mass extinction at the end of the Permian period
reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80-95% of all marine species went
extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus
in reef building in all of Earth history.
 4. The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half
of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went
extinct.
 5. The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously
associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals
survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was
decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea

25
 levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans
flooded up to 40% of the continents.

There was also a major catastrophic extinction event that occurred four
thousand years ago that caused the great flood described in myths and legend,
and changed the climate throughout the world with devastating results, leaving
carnage and destruction everywhere. This I have written in great detail in the
third book of this series, The Deluge as History to be published in 2015 if not
before.

Back to the plot! From 1830 to 1833 Lyell's multi-volume Principles of

Geology was published. The work's subtitle was "An attempt to explain the
former changes of the Earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation",
and this explains why Lyell had such an impact on science. He had drawn his
explanations from field studies conducted directly before he went to work on the
text of his great book on geology.

Lyell was convinced, along with John Playfair (1748 - 1819), a major advocate
of James Hutton's (1726 - 1797) idea of Uniformitarianism in the previous
century, that the earth was shaped entirely by slow-moving forces that were still
in operation today and that had been acting over a very long period of time. This
was in contrast to Catastrophism, the prevailing geologic view that abrupt
changes had shaped our earth and which had been adopted by the Church in
support the belief in Noah's flood. Lyell saw himself as "the spiritual saviour of
geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses."

In various revised editions (twelve in all, through 1872), Principles of Geology

was the most influential geological work in the middle of the nineteenth century,
and did much to put geology on a modern footing. For his efforts Lyell was

26
 knighted in 1848, then made a baronet in 1864.

Studies of earthquakes and volcanoes clearly showed that the surface crust of
the earth had been subjected to massive natural transformations. The
observation of rain, wind, water erosion, and sea erosion in action showed that
these forces could be capable of reducing mountains and creating valleys.
However, there was also considerable evidence to support the Catastrophist
model that the earth had been subjected to catastrophic forces beyond that which
was being observed in the natural world today. In this respect Cuvier had been
correct too. However, because Catastrophism was associated with religious
beliefs this theory gradually fell out of favour as the great Catastrophist scientists
like Cuvier died and Uniformitarian scientists took their place.

CUVIER VERSUS LAMARK

Besides geology Cuvier contributed an immense amount of research in
vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and palaeontology, and he also wrote and
lectured on the history of science. But not all his views were shared by others.
When scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) tried to suggest that
life had evolved Cuvier disagreed profoundly and he soon used his influence to
squash such ideas. Cuvier was able to argue that his extensive experience with
fossil material indicated that one fossil form did not gradually change into a
succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an
abrupt appearance in the fossil record and continued unchanged to the time of its
extinction through catastrophic means.

Cuvier pointed for example to the mummified cats and ibises that had been
brought back from Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and he could show that they
were no different from their living counterparts. Cuvier used this argument often
to support his claim that life forms did not evolve over time. It is because of this
fact and his understanding of animal anatomy and physiology, that Cuvier
strongly objected to any notion of evolution that some scientists were proposing
which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another, a theory
known as the "Transmutation of Species".

Another reason why Cuvier did not believe in organic evolution was because he
reasoned that for any change in an organism's anatomy it would have rendered it
unable to survive. Cuvier saw organisms as integrated wholes, in which each
part's form and function were integrated into the entire body. No part, he said,
could be modified without impairing this functional integration. This made a lot
of sense. Unfortunately, Cuvier's knowledge and expertise lent support for a
bogus theory that had infiltrated the Church in the previous centuries, namely
the doctrine of the "Immutability (or fixity) of the Species". [2] This erroneous
belief would have far reaching consequences and the irony of it was there had
been no support of the theory anywhere in the Bible. Yet the Church promoted it
as if it was gospel truth. How did this bogus doctrine become so entangled in
Church dogma?

27
 It was Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who more than any other who introduced
the idea of the fixity of species into the Church. For those who do not recognise
the name, Aquinas was the dominant thinker of the middle ages and he and
others like him blended Aristotelian philosophy with Catholic Christianity so that
over time, ideas that were not scriptural found their way into the doctrines of the
Church and were given a biblical facade of authority.

By the eighteenth century, the concept of the immutability (or fixity) of species
had become so linked to the belief in separate creation that the Swedish botanist
Carolus Linnaeus (1707 - 1778), famous for laying the foundations of our modern
biological classification system, could say with sincere conviction: "We count as
many species as there were created forms in the beginning." [3]

By the nineteenth century the doctrine of the immutability of the species and
that all species had been created separately by divine intervention was
inseparable. The Church adopted the theory as if it was Holy Writ and gave its
blessing and approval of this non-scriptural theory while scientists like Cuvier
gave their backing with scientific evidence. However, not all naturalists agreed
with this view. One of these was Charles Darwin.

NATURAL SELECTION DISCOVERED BY ACCIDENT

During the survey voyage of HMS Beagle, Darwin arrived at the islands of the
Galapagos, an archipelago of volcanic islands distributed around the equator in
the Pacific Ocean, 972 km west of continental Ecuador. At this time Darwin was
still thinking about geology and he did not take much notice of the birds on the
islands. He left it to his servant Syms Covington (1816-1861) to shoot and gather
specimens of the birds including the many varieties of finches that lived on the
different islands.

At this time, Darwin had no idea that these finches would be the catalyst for
the theory of evolution by natural selection that he had long sought to prove. As it
was, it was still early days and the evidence was still being gathered.

On his arrival back in England in 1836 Darwin was in for a surprise. He had
presented the finches to the Geological Society of London at their meeting on 4
January 1837, along with other mammal and bird specimens he had collected.
The bird specimens, including the "Galapagos finches", were given to John
Gould, (1804 - 1881) the famous English ornithologist, for identification.

Gould set aside his paid work and at the next meeting on 10th January he
reported that birds from the Galapagos Islands which Darwin had thought were
blackbirds, "gross-beaks" and finches, were in fact a series of ground Finches that
were so peculiar as to form that they formed an entirely new group, containing
twelve species. Darwin was stunned! Here was the evidence he had been seeking
and he almost missed it. Excited beyond words he sought to meet Gould
personally to confirm the report and to find out more.

28
 Darwin met Gould in early March and was told even better news. Gould told
Darwin that he had identified more species of finch than had originally been
analysed and concluded that in fact twenty five of the twenty-six land birds were
new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but were closely allied to
those found on the South American continent.

To Darwin this was like manna from heaven. He now saw that if the finch
species had been confined to individual islands this would help to account for the
number of different species throughout the islands. He needed more information
because he himself had not been involved in gathering the birds. So he sought
information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by
Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy's steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant
Covington, who fortunately had labelled them island by island. [4] From these,
Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations where the finches had lived.

It was not long before the concept of Natural Selection, the idea that living
things could change through natural process, began to take shape but something
was lacking. What was it that caused the finches and other creatures to evolve in
the first place? It was then that Darwin had a eureka moment!

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation
of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by
which to work..." [5]

The book that Darwin referred was entitled An Essay on the Principle of
Population published in 1798, by the British economist Thomas Robert Malthus
(1766 - 183), who explained how human populations remain in balance. Malthus
argued that any increase in the availability of food for basic human survival could
not match the geometrical rate of population growth. The latter, therefore, had to
be checked by natural limitations such as famine and disease, or by social actions
such as war. The idea of "The Survival of the Fittest" was born.

Darwin immediately applied Malthus's argument to animals and plants, and

by 1838 he had arrived at a sketch of his theory of evolution through natural
selection. A year later in 1839 he married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, and
soon after, moved to a small estate, Down House, outside London. Here for
nearly twenty years Darwin assembled and collated his findings, and gradually
his theory took root and grew to fruition, while he and his wife had ten children,
three of whom unfortunately died in infancy.

29
 It was in 1851 that his treasured ten year old daughter Annie having fallen ill a
year before with Scarlet fever died. Any thoughts of a benevolent God died with
her. Darwin was traumatised. In a personal memoir he wrote "We have lost the
joy of the household, and the solace of our old age.... Oh that she could now know
how deeply, how tenderly we do still & and shall ever love her dear joyous
face." [6]

Darwin's wife Emma was a devout believer in God and the Bible and so she
was comforted by the thought that Annie's death was not the end but just a
beginning of a new life in the afterlife. However, for Darwin there was no such
solace. Having seen Annie die he could not believe what Emma believed. Annie's
cruel death destroyed his belief in a moral, just universe. As far as Darwin was
concerned there was no God and from henceforth he devoted all his time and
effort to prove it, come what may. So it was that in a review of the book in Science
(vol. 296, p1974, 14 June 2002), the reviewer states, "Freed from the last vestige
of belief that the world was perfect because God created it that way, Darwin
continued without spiritual restraint to work out his theory on the origin of
species."

THE BOOK THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

To cut a long story short it was only a matter of time before Darwin made good
his intentions but not in the way he had originally intended. He had been
working on his "big book" as he called it, to prove his theory of natural selection.
By 1858 the book had reached a length of over one quarter of a million words and
was well over half completed when his writing was dramatically interrupted by
the celebrated letter from the other end of the world outlining Alfred Russel
Wallace's astonishingly parallel but independently conceived theory of natural
selection.

His hand now forced, Darwin felt obliged to change his plans for initial
publication; and, after the brief preliminary announcement that was presented
jointly with Wallace's paper at the Linnean Society of London in 1858, he rapidly
wrote out in eight months the new abstract of his views which became his much
lauded book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of
1872, the title was shortened to simply say The Origin of Species and that is how
we remember Darwin and not by the longer title of the book.

The Origin of Species was an immediate best seller. The publisher John
Murray ran off 1,250 copies and took orders for 1,500 even before the publication
day, including 500 for a circulating library. A month later, he produced another
3,000 copies. Darwin took an active lead in promoting the book through
"journals, newspapers, public lectures, controversial tracts and freethinking
magazines".

The trouble was that people, including Darwin, lost the plot. Darwin had set

30
 out to prove that just as man could change the appearance of a species through
breeding a process he called artificial selection, given a long period of time he
believed that nature could do the same through natural selection. However, this
was a long way from one species changing into another. Surprisingly, much of the
hostility and alarm came not overtly from religion, but from within science. The
book was hailed, applauded, challenged, questioned, condemned, cruelly
dismissed and, rather astonishingly, ignored in many quarters of the scientific
community. However, once other scientists such as Charles Lyell, Joseph Dalton
Hooker (1817 - 1911) and Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895) publicly voiced
their support the writing was on the wall. Even so some noted scientists of the
day opposed Darwin's theory.

Sir Richard Owen (1804 - 1892) the famous paleontologist who coined the
word "Dinosaur" was the first to respond. He was at first courteous and claimed
that he had long believed that "existing influences" were responsible for the
"ordained" birth of species. Darwin seemed to reassure Owen that he was looking
at everything as resulting from designed laws, which Owen interpreted as
showing a shared belief in "Creative Power".

Owen could not be more wrong as Darwin's friends and associates had other
ideas. They saw the opportunity to see, albeit in a kind of fog, that man might not
have been created but might have evolved from lesser creatures, perhaps even
apes. Betrayed Owen went on the offensive and in 1860 he attacked Darwin's
theory with all his might, backed by his enviable reputation. However Huxley
rose to the occasion, and soon earned his later reputation as "Darwin's Bulldog".

Darwin watched from the sidelines as Owen attacked those whom he called
Darwin's "disciples", Hooker and Huxley. Own chastised them for their "short-
sighted adherence", to a book that symbolised the sort of "abuse of science... to
which a neighbouring nation, some seventy years since, owed its temporary
degradation" in a reference to the French Revolution. It was now that an
association with apes came into play, even though Darwin made no such a
connection in his now famous book.

Owen attempted to smear Huxley, by portraying him as an "advocate of man's

origins from a transmuted ape" and one of his contributions to the Athenaeum
was titled, Ape-Origin of Man as Tested by the Brain. Huxley countered and the
high point of the verbal battle came when Huxley conclusively demonstrated that
the hippo campus minor, a small fold at the back of the brain, which Owen said
was unique to man, was also to be found in the brains of apes. However, by
winning one battle this did not mean the war had been won and so the feuding
between Owen and Darwin's supporters continued for years.

Another scientist who opposed Darwin's theory was Adam Sedgwick (1785 -
1873). He was one of the founders of modern geology and he strongly believed
that species of organisms originated in a succession of Divine creative acts
throughout the long expanse of history. He strongly supported advances in
geology and in fact Charles Darwin was one of his geology students who in 1831

31
 accompanied him on a field trip to Wales that summer.

Though he had guided the young Charles Darwin in his early studies of
geology, Sedgwick was an outspoken opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution by
means of natural selection. Sedgwick described Darwin's book as being "utterly
false". He wrote that it "repudiates all reasoning from final causes; and seems to
shut the door on any view (however feeble) of the God of Nature as manifested in
His works. From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and
served up".

Sedgwick like many other scientists could not accept that man was just an
animal. He emphasised the distinction between the moral and physical aspects of
life, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A
man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly". If humanity broke this
distinction it "would suffer a damage that might brutalise it - & sink the human
race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its
written records tell us of its history".

The battle lines were now drawn, and both sides fought hard and sometimes
dirty, to either retain the status quo or to overturn what had been accepted as
truth for hundreds of years. As the debate intensified, more and more people
were drawn into the maelstrom including many of the public. Darwin's book, the
cause of the storm, became a best-seller and by now everyone talked about it.
Pandora's box had been opened and there was no turning back.

SAMUEL WILBERFORCE ENTERS THE FRAY

Sooner or later the Church would have to come involved in the debate and they
had a person on whom they could rely on to represent their case. His name was
Samuel Wilberforce (1805 - 1873) who was an English bishop in the Church of
England, third son of William Wilberforce (1759 - 1833) the famous English
politician and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Known as

32
 "Soapy Sam", Wilberforce was one of the greatest public speakers of his day.
He was not a scientist in the true sense of the word but he was a prominent
ornithologist and Vice President of the British Association for the Advancement
of Science.

A meeting was held at the Oxford University Museum on 30th June 1860,
chaired by John Stevens Henslow, Darwin's former mentor from Cambridge.
Wilberforce was amongst the illustrious company that included Huxley,
Benjamin Brodie, Hooker and Robert FitzRoy, the captain of the famous ship
"The Beagle". A presentation was made based upon paper by John Draper, and
American scientist and author who would later write a book entitled, History of
the Conflict between Religion and Science, which was published in 1874 to wide
acclaim. However, his presentation on the day was by all accounts long and
boring, although the subject was a significant one, raising as it did the question of
the social implications of Darwin's book.

After Draper's presentation Henslow invited various people to speak in turn.

Henslow first invited Huxley to comment (in his capacity as a leading supporter
of Darwin), but was rebuffed with a sarcastic retort. Only then did Henslow turn
to Wilberforce to put across some of the main points at issue.

The report in The Athenaeum, a literary magazine that followed the

proceedings said that, "The Bishop of Oxford stated that the Darwinian theory,
when tried by the principles of inductive science, broke down. The facts brought
forward, did not warrant the theory… Mr Darwin's conclusions were a
hypothesis, raised most unphilosophically to the dignity of a causal theory. He
was glad to know that the greatest names in science were opposed to this theory,
which he believed to be opposed to the interests of science and humanity."

Jackson's Oxford Journal, another publication to report on the meeting at the

time, carried a similar description of Wilberforce's arguments. Wilberforce,
according to the Journal, condemned the Darwinian theory as: "…
unphilosophical; as founded, not on philosophical principles, but upon fancy,
and he denied that one instance had been produced by Mr Darwin on the alleged
change from one species to another had ever taken place. He alluded to the
weight of authority that had been brought to bear against it - men of eminence,
like Sir B. Brodie and Professor Owen, being opposed to it, and concluded, amid
much cheering, by denouncing it as degrading to man, and as a theory founded
upon fancy, instead of upon facts."

An altercation took place during the meeting between Wilberforce and Huxley,
during which time it was alleged that, in tones icy with sarcasm Wilberforce put
his famous question: was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he
claimed descent from an ape? The cheers rolled up and the ladies fluttered their
white handkerchiefs. Henslow pounded for order. The Bishop had scored.

Huxley it is said to have responded by shouting that he would feel no shame in

having an ape as an ancestor, but that he would be ashamed of a brilliant man

33
 who plunged into scientific questions of which he knew nothing. According to
the story that is recounted on about every evolutionist site, the room dissolved
into an uproar. Men jumped to their feet, shouting at this direct insult to the
clergy. Lady Brewster fainted. Admiral Fitzroy, the former Captain of the Beagle,
waved a Bible aloft, shouting over the tumult that it, rather than the viper he had
harboured in his ship, was the true and unimpeachable authority. Arguments
broke out all over the room, and Hooker said that his blood boiled.

The famous altercation never happened! The image conjured of rousing

rhetoric from Huxley followed by descent into chaos and disorder is grossly
misleading, as was the impression that Huxley had won the debate. This image
was a fabricated account made long after the event. According to the book, "The
Huxley-Wilberforce debate: A reconsideration" published in 1981, "The standard
account is a wholly one-sided effusion from the winning side, put together long
after the event, uncritically copied from book to book, and shaped by the
hagiographic conventions of Victorian life and letters."

The truth is much more mundane. While it may have been true that the more
reliable accounts suggest that Huxley did respond with the "ape as an ancestor"
retort, the remainder of his speech was unremarkable. Balfour Stewart, a
prominent scientist and director of the Kew Observatory, wrote afterwards that
(in a letter to David Forbes on July 4 1860), "I think the Bishop had the best of
it." Joseph Dalton Hooker, Darwin's friend and botanical mentor, noted in a
letter to Darwin (dated July 2) that Huxley had been largely inaudible in the hall.
"he could not throw his voice over so large an assembly nor command the
audience … he did not allude to Sam's weak points nor put the matter in a form
or way that carried the audience".

Contrary to popular belief, the debate (if can be called that) was not a case of
theology against science but rather science against science. John Lucas notes (in
his essay Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter) that:
"Wilberforce, contrary to the central tenet of the legend, did not prejudge the
issue. The main bulk of the review is given over to an entirely scientific
assessment of Darwin's Theory."

Wilberforce had attacked Darwin's theory from a scientific point of view and
correctly pointed out that it was full of holes. The evidence just did not support
the theory. While it could be said that selective pressures did indeed seem to have
an effect of causing changes in morphology (body type), they do not cause
changes between species. Wilberforce pointed to the sterility of hybrids (such as
mules, which are the offspring of horses and asses) which strongly demonstrated
for the fixity of species and against successful changes in species.

For the next forty or fifty years the debate whether man had evolved or had
been created continued to waged but gradually the tide turned in favour of the
evolutionary model for the origins of man. The catalyst for which evolutionist
point of view was finally adopted was the development of what has since proved
to have been a fantasy - the myth of the ape-man. However, before I proceed with

34
 this topic it will be useful to tell you about the remarkable story of how a lost
Jewish book was found about the same time and which sheds considerable light
upon the history of the Watchers and the Nephilim - the subject of this present
work.

35
 Chapter 3
THE RETURN OF THE NEPHILIM

"In the New Testament are found quotations from the Book of Enoch, one of the
Jewish Scriptures, and from the Hymn of Cleanthes, made by Paul in his speech
on Mars Hill, yet how few who read it are familiar with either! The former, lost
for a thousand years and rediscovered by Bruce the traveler in the Abyssinian
Bible and translated by Richard Laurence."
(The New York Times, 15th November 1902)

The only reference to the Nephilim in the Bible, as we have already seen, was
an obscure passage in the book of Genesis. If this was all we had to go on then we
would be hard pressed to put forward a case regarding the subject of this book.
However, there is a lot more known about the Watchers and Nephilim beyond
that which is written in the Bible. This is thanks to a book that was once regarded
as scripture, used by Christians and Jews alike (even Jesus it would appear to
have used it) but which, because of what it said about the angels, was later
denounced, banned, cursed, burned and shredded - and last but not least,
conveniently forgotten for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence,
this book survived and found its way back into circulation once again a century
ago.

36
 The book to which I refer is the Book of Enoch better known today as 1 Enoch.
This is because there are two other books named "Enoch". These are 2 Enoch,
surviving only in Old Slavonic and 3 Enoch (surviving in Hebrew, c. 5th to 6th
century).

It is to Enoch 1 (I shall refer to this as the Book of Enoch from now on) that I
turn our attention to and this book consists of five smaller works, written over
different times and evidently by different authors.

 The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1 - 36)

 The Book of Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37 - 71) (also called the
Similitudes of Enoch)
 The Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72 - 82) (also called the Book of the
Heavenly Luminaries or Book of Luminaries)
 The Book of Dream Visions (1 Enoch 83 - 90) (also called the Book of
Dreams)
 The Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91 - 108)

The first book of the collection, The Book of the Watchers is universally
recognised as the oldest of the group dating about 300 BC. [1] Interestingly, the
publication of the "Book of the Watchers" coincided with the time when the
present form of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible - including Genesis)
was written down. Hence, it is quite possible that the book of Enoch is much,
much older and that it existed either in written form or as oral tradition before
300 BC and which eventually joined the corpus of ancient writings collected at
the time when the Torah was written.

James H Charlesworth, director of Dead Sea Studies at Yale University, says in

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha & The New Testament, "I have no doubt
that the Enoch groups deemed the Book of Enoch as fully inspired as any biblical
book. I am also convinced that the group of Jews behind the Temple Scroll,
which is surely pre-Qumranic, would have judged it to be quintessential Torah -
that is, equal to, and perhaps better than, Deuteronomy..."

THE BOOK OF ENOCH IN THE TIME OF CHRIST

By the time Jesus was born the canon of the Old Testament had been firmly
established and was divided into three 'collections'.

1. The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and

Deuteronomy
2. The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 &
2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one
volume)
3. The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of
Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah

37
 (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume)

Jesus referred to these collections himself when he said: "These are My words
which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written
about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be
fulfilled." (Luke 24:44) In fact Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament
books and the New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books. However, five of
the books were not quoted and these were Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Solomon.

Not everyone in the first century of the Christian era accepted the Old
Testament canon as we know it. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah while the
Pharisees accepted the entire canon. The Essenes not only accepted the canon
but also included the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees as authoritative. [2]
And to confuse matters further, Greek speaking Jews and many early Christians
spoke and read Greek and so they relied on the Septuagint translation of the
canon which also included what we call today the Apocrypha.

The term "Apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or
"secret". Originally, this term was applied to sacred books whose contents were
far to exalted to be made available to the general public. However in later times
the term took on an uncomplimentary connotation because the orthodoxy of
these hidden books was often questionable. Origen (Comm. in Matt. 10.18; p.
13.881) distinguished between books that were to be read in public worship and
apocryphal books. After the Catholic Church became the dominant Christian
religious movement in the Fourth Century, the term "apocryphal" was applied to
heretical works which were forbidden to be read - often on pain of death.

New Testament writers relied heavily on the Septuagint (LXX) the name given
to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. This translation had been made
between 300 - 200 BC because many Jews had spread throughout the Greek
empire of Alexander and communicated in Greek rather than through their
native Hebrew language. By the time of Christ most Jews including Jesus
probably spoke koine Greek because this was by then regarded as the universal
language, especially of the educated classes of the Roman Empire, much like
English is counted as an international language today.

Let's not forget that the New Testament was originally written in Greek by
various authors (Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter etc), and
therefore if these people could speak Greek, then it is likely that Jesus could too.
In addition the majority of Old Testament quotations cited in the New Testament
are quoted directly from the Septuagint version also written in Greek. However,
in addition to the Septuagint translation it is very apparent that the early
Christians were also greatly influenced by the Book of Enoch as were the sect of
the Essenes.

Although the Book of Enoch may not have been part of the official Old
Testament canon it was certainly considered to be authoritative. [3] R H Charles

38
 who translated 1 Enoch in 1906 rightly says, "the influence of 1 Enoch on the
New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical books put together", and he gives a formidable list of passages
in the New Testament which "either in phraseology or idea directly depend on, or
are illustrative of, passages in 1 Enoch," as well as a further list showing that
various doctrines in 1 Enoch had "an undoubted share in moulding the
corresponding New Testament doctrines." [4]

Craig A. Evans, author of Noncanonical Writings and New Testament

Interpretation agrees with Charles as do many other commentators. "I Enoch
contributes much to intertestamental views of angels, heaven, judgment,
resurrection, and the Messiah. This book has left its stamp upon many of the NT
writers, especially the author of Revelation." [5]

It is interesting to note that the New Testament writers never quote from the
Apocrypha that was included with the Septuagint but they do quote from the
Book of Enoch either directly or by inference. The author of Jude for example
directly quotes from 1 Enoch - "Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints
to execute judgment ..." (Jude 14-15). "And behold! He cometh with ten
thousands of His holy ones. To execute judgment upon all, And to destroy all the
ungodly." (1 Enoch 1:9) We know it is a direct quote because Jude earlier in his
book refers to Enoch by name.

Jude also says, "And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day." (Jude 1:6) The apostle Peter makes a similar
statement, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to
hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment".
(2 Peter 2:4) Both statements come from what is described in the Book of Enoch.

Encyclopedia Biblica says that, "It is generally accepted by scholars that the
author of the Epistle of Jude was familiar with the Book of Enoch and was
influenced by it in thought and diction." [6] Peter H. Davids agrees and wrote,
"Did Jude, then, consider this scripture to be like Genesis or Isaiah? Certainly he
did consider it authoritative, a true word from God." [7]

JESUS KNEW THE BOOK OF ENOCH

What about Jesus? Did he refer to the Book of Enoch? The evidence is clear
that he did. Many of the key concepts used by Jesus to apply to himself are
directly connected to terms and ideas found in the Book of Enoch. Take for
example, "The Son of Man". The Hebrew expression "son of man" (ben-'adam)
occurs one hundred and seven times in the Hebrew Bible. However the phrase
was interpreted by the Jews to denote mankind in general with special reference
to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Book of Isaiah
51:12, etc). It was also a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to
remind him of his human weakness.

39
 By the first century AD the term "Son of Man" was one that was specifically
applied to Jesus as the Messiah. In fact the four canonical Gospels sees Jesus and
Jesus alone using the term, apparently of himself. It had long been thought that
Jesus was referring to the book of Daniel where it is recorded, "I saw in the night
visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and
came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." (Daniel
7:13) However, Biblical scholars now generally agree that it was from the Book of
Enoch that Jesus obtained the term and applied it to himself.

The term "son of man" is used eighteen times in the Book of Enoch and the
Pharisees, Sadduces and Essenes were familiar with this terminology knowing
that it referred to the Anointed One (Messiah) of God. When Jesus called himself
the "Son of Man", the adherents of the aforementioned Jewish sects understood
exactly what he meant, for they were just as familiar with the Book of Enoch as
Jesus was.

The Jews denied that Jesus was the Messiah or the "son of man" because he
claimed that he existed before the world begun and that he would also be a light
to the gentiles - all concepts taken from the Book of Enoch. Needless to say it is
no coincidence that the phrase appears in the Book of Parables, the second
section of the Book of Enoch (1 En. 37-71). Here the phrase is used in reference to
an eschatological protagonist with heavenly attributions, who is also called
"Righteous One," "Chosen One," and "Messiah". This character was expected to
preside over the final judgment, pronouncing the sentence against the
unrighteous and the sinners (1 Enoch. 61:8-9) and delivering them "to the angels
for the punishment " (1 Enoch 62:11). He was also to be worshipped by the "kings
and the mighty," (1 Enoch 62:9). (Other references to the Son of Man in the Book
of Enoch are: 1 Enoch 46:1-3, 48:2; 62:5, 7, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27, 29; 70:1; 71:14,
17)

We read for example in Enoch:

"And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white
like wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the
appearance of a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of
the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed
me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was,
and whence he was, (and) why he went with the Ancient of Days? And
he answered and said unto me: This is the Son of Man who hath
righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness, And who revealeth
all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the Lord of Hosts
hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before the Lord
of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (1 Enoch:46:1-3) [bold mine]

In another place we read:

40
 "And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the
Lord of Hosts, And his name before the Ancient of Days. Yea, before
the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were
made, His name was named before the Lord of Hosts. He shall be a
staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he
shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are
troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship
before him, And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord
of Hosts. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before
Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore. And the
wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the holy and
righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because they
have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his
name they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been
in regard to their life". (1 Enoch: 48:2-7)[bold mine]

Hence when Jesus was at the Temple surrounded by the Pharisees and he said
to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was
glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou
seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I am". (John 8:56-57). Enraged, the Pharisees picked up stones in
order to kill him but Jesus escaped by mingling with the crowd and leaving the
temple area unmolested.

Later, during trial before the Sanhedrin the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you
the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am: and you shall
see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds
of heaven." (Mark 14:61) The high priest went ballistic and ripped up his clothes
while calling Jesus a blasphemer.

The evidence is clear that Jesus read and used The Book of Enoch as if it was
scripture otherwise those that accused him whenever he referred to material
from the book would have derided him for using it. But they didn't. Although
while it is true that all the usages of the term in the Old Testament refers to an
ordinary human being in contrast to God or other spiritual beings, by Jesus' day
"Son of man" had become the title for God's agent who would usher in the age to
come in power and glory. And the priests of the Jews knew it just as did the
people. Likewise, after Jesus' death the early Christians continued to invoke the
authority of the book of Enoch and used it often when debating issues related to
their beliefs and especially whenever angels were discussed.

THE EARLY CHRISTIANS HONOURED THE BOOK

Evidence that the early Christians referred to the Book of Enoch is clear. Justin

41
 Martyr (100 - ca.165) for example in his writing Second Apology, ascribed all
evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through
lust for women - directly referencing the Enochian writings.

Athenagoras (ca. 133 - 190), writing in his work called Legatio in about 170
A.D., regarded Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated
both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about
the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from
the Enochian writings. Likewise Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-
185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255);
Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix,
Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milan all made reference to the Book of Enoch as
if it was scripture.

It should be noted that during the first three centuries of the Christian Era the
writings that make up the New Testament canon had not as yet been decided
upon so that there were many writings considered authoritative to be read with
the Book of Enoch being one of them. Interestingly even the apocryphal writings
made references to the book, thereby demonstrating the high esteem in which the
book was held. For example, the author of the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas
which many scholars today believe was probably written in the years following
the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and before the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132
quotes the Book of Enoch three times - and refers to it as scripture:

"The last offence is at hand, concerning which the scripture speaketh,

as Enoch saith. For to this end the Master hath cut the seasons and the
days short, that His beloved might hasten and come to His
inheritance." (Barnabas 4:3)

"Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of
Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture saith; And it shall be in the
last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the
fold and the tower thereof to destruction. And it came to pass as the
Lord spake." (Barnabas 16:5)

"But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. There is; in the
place where he himself undertakes to make and finish it. For it is
written And it shall come to pass, when the week is being
accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name
of the Lord." (Barnabas 16:6)

It is said that The Epistle of Barnabas lays a greater claim to canonical

authority than most others. It has been cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen,
Eusebius, and Jerome, and many notable Christian theologians.

The Epistle of Barnabas notwithstanding, other apocryphal works also reflect

42
 knowledge of the Enoch story of the Watchers, notably the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees. Tertullian for one, whilst admitting
that the "Scripture of Enoch" is not received by some because it is not included in
the Hebrew Canon, speaks of the author as "the most ancient prophet, Enoch,"
and of the book as being the divinely inspired autograph of that immortal
patriarch, preserved by Noah in the ark, or miraculously reproduced by him
through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The words of Tertullian should be taken seriously. He was a prolific early

Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He was a
notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has
been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western
theology." So when he describes the Book of Enoch as the divinely inspired
autograph of Enoch then it is a book that should not be ignored.

Tertullian further adds that the Jews rejected the book because of its apparent
reference to Jesus, the Messiah. He says, "But as Enoch has spoken in the same
scripture of the Lord, and 'every scripture suitable for edification is divinely
inspired,' let us reject nothing which belongs to us. It may now seem to have been
disavowed by the Jews like all other scripture which speaks of Christ - a fact
which should cause us no surprise, as they were not to receive him, even when
personally addressed by himself." [8]

Reverting to the second century of Christianity, we find Irenæus and Clement

of Alexandria citing the Book of Enoch without questioning its sacred character.
Thus, Irenæus, assigning to the Book of Enoch an authenticity analogous to that
of Mosaic literature, affirms that Enoch, although a man, filled the office of God's
messenger to the angels.

Finally I turn to Origen (A.D. 254), who in quoting Hebrew literature, assigns
to the Book of Enoch the same authority as to the Psalms. In his treatise on the
angels, we read: "We are not to suppose that a special office has been assigned by
mere accident to a particular angel: as to Raphael, the work of curing and
healing; to Gabriel, the direction of wars; to Michael, the duty of hearing the
prayers and supplications of men."

Turning to the Book of Enoch we can read from where Origen obtained his
angelic information.

"After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to
explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I
have seen on the four sides, and whose words I have heard and written
down. He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy
Michael. The second is he who presides over every suffering and every
affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides
over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over
repentance and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is

43
 Phanuel."

We can detect Origen's implicit trust in the Book of Enoch as a book of Divine
revelation.

In conclusion, it is evident that what was written in the Book of Enoch played a
crucial role in the development of the Christian faith. But then suddenly the book
disappeared from view and was lost for a thousand years. What happened? How
could a book of such long-standing influence, authority, and veneration simply
disappear?

ARIUS RAISES A STORM

The Book of Enoch fell into disrepute for the very reason that it was held in
such high veneration. It's decline began in the fourth century when Constantine
the Great (272 - 337) adopted the Christian religion as the State religion and the
Church of Rome gradually, like a thief in the night, took on the mantle as the sole
arbiter of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Initially the bishop of Rome,
known today as the Pope, was not ranked any higher than any of the other
bishops of the other great Christian centres found within the Roman Empire but
by the end of the century this was to change dramatically.

Things came to a head when a great theological battle began to be waged

within the Christian movement concerning whether or not Jesus had been
created. The book of Enoch and other authoritative writings described Jesus as
having existed long before the world was created. However, there were those who
were beginning to consider Jesus as being more that what he claimed to be. Some
were saying that Jesus was in fact Almighty God himself and they began speaking
out in public about this doctrine. So it was that Alexander the nineteenth
Patriarch of Alexandria gave a sermon on the similarity of the Son to the Father.
On hearing this Arius, (250 - 336) an ascetic Christian presbyter (deacon) in the
Alexandrian church objected strenuously. He argued that "if the Father begat the
Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is
evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily
follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing. Hence, since the Son
was created by The Father, He therefore had not always existed as had God, and
He was not equal with The Father."

It was not long before the dispute between Alexander and Arius had spread far
and wide beyond Alexandria, in Egypt. In fact the entire Christian infrastructure
and belief system had been torn apart into two rival camps, neither of whom
were willing to give ground. As the dispute grew with increasing bitterness
between the antagonists, Constantine the emperor was not at all happy. He did
not care about the theological issues as much as he did in keeping the peace and
his position in power. He wanted stability in his empire and he had gambled that
making the Christian religion the State religion would do just that. Now he saw

44
 squabbling bishops arguing over an issue that he himself felt irrelevant. Gods
had been worshipped throughout the history of the Roman world so he saw no
reason why Jesus could not be venerated as one as well. It was time to step in and
sort things out personally.

Constantine had a trump card. He like all his predecessors still retained the
title of Pontifex Maximus which, under imperial law actually made him in effect
the "Head of the Church"! Hence it was by this authority that he was able
establish the Council of Nicaea (325) to settle what became known as the Arian
controversy. Later the Emperor Gratian (c. 360) passed onto Pope Damasus I the
title Pontifex Maximus because the Emperor felt that it was not right for he
himself to carry that title when he was, after all, not a Christian priest. Gradian's
gesture would prove to be the first step in making the Roman Church the most
powerful Christian institution that it would become. But more of that later.

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

On the 19th June, 325 Church leaders from across the empire were summoned
to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an
attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian
Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.

Although Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church
(about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), only a small number actually
attended, about 318 in total. The Eastern bishops formed the greatest majority
and they mainly supported Alexander's stance. Arius was present and he was
supported by some notable Christian leaders including Secundus of Ptolemais,

45
 Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the
Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius
of Caesarea, Paulinus of Tyrus, Actius of Lydda, Menophantus of Ephesus, and
Theognus of Nicea. However, they numbered only twenty-two compared to the
almost two-hundred who opposed them. It was clear that the cards were stacked
against Arius and his associates.

Constantine arrived in all the pomp and splendour that only an emperor could
exhibit. Eusebius of Nicomedia described the emperor who "himself proceeded
through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed
in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing
radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendour of gold and
precious stones."

Although Constantine was officially present at the Council deliberations as an

observer and did not vote there was no doubt to all attendees that he wanted the
matter settled - and quickly. As far as he was concerned once a Creed had been
determined by the Council meeting with the approval of the majority, he would
exile anyone who refused to endorse it. The problem was that the majority were
against Arius and he and his supporters had no chance. By the time the dust had
settled, Arius, Theonas, and Secundus who had refused to sign the creed, were
thus exiled to Illyria, as well as being excommunicated.

The statement of the Creed was as follows:

"[We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten
of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of one substance (homooúsios) with the Father, by whom ail
things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down
and was incarnate, and was made man; he suffered, and the third day
he rose again, Acended into heaven; from thence he cometh to judge
the quick and the dead."

For Alexander and his supporters it was a hollow victory. It was true that they
had got the Council to sign up to a new doctrine namely "homooúsios" where God
the Father and Jesus were described as being of the (Greek: "of one substance,"
or "of one essence") and therefore equally God but that was not the end of the
matter. The use of the word in the Nicene Creed was meant to put an end to the
controversy, but it did nothing of the sort. Instead it created even more discord
than before. Why?

At that time "homooúsios" could have three possible meanings.

1. It could be generic, ie, of one substance; and could be said of two individual
men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.

46
 2. It could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son were
identical as a concrete being.

3. It could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance
because both are made of the same clay.

The first meaning stressed the equality of the Son with the Father but were of
the same substance or essence. If the second meaning for the word was taken to
be the Council's intention, it would mean that the Father and Son were identical
and indistinguishable - and it would be considered heresy even to suggest such a
thing. The third meaning gave the word a materialistic tendency that would
imply that the Father and Son are parts of the same stuff - they were spiritual
beings.

Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicæa signed the creed, but only after
a long and desperate opposition. However, when Eusebius returned to
Nicomedia he wrote (on behalf of himself and two other bishops) to Constantine
saying, "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy
for fear of you." This angered the Emperor who responded by banishing Eusebius
and the two bishops (Theonas and Secundus) to exile in Greece.

This banishment of Arians, as supporters of Arius were called, was the first
example of the civil punishment of what was called heresy, and it opened the long
and dark era of persecution for all departures from what would become the
Roman Catholic orthodox faith in the future. In the meantime all writings by
Arius were burnt and his followers branded as enemies of Christianity and the
State.

Although Eusebius had been exiled he was still held in such high esteem by the
emperor, so much so that after the lapse of three years, Eusebius succeeded in
regaining the imperial favour and was recalled. He returned to the imperial court
in 329 but still continued to support Arius while becoming the emperor's
personal guide in matters of theology. Eusebius therefore was able bring to the
whole machinery of the state government into action in support of Arius. It was
only a matter of time before he was able to convince Constantine that the
Council's use of the word "homoousios" (suggesting that Father and Son were
identical) was in fact heretical and that Arius had been right all along.

The Emperor now began to favour the Arians but he was still committed to
pacifying the conflict between the Arius party and the "homooúsios" party. The
Nicene Creed had done little to fan the flames of fire of the dispute that
continued to rock the Christian religion. The churches, the theatres, the
hippodromes, the feasts, the markets, the streets, the baths, and the shops of
Constantinople and other large cities were filled with dogmatic disputes it was
said. "The highways" says the impartial non-Christian Roman historian,
Ammianus Mascellinus (325/330 - after 391), "were covered with galloping
bishops."

47
 As the conflict between the two parties continued unabated a new theologian
now appeared on the scene who would champion the "homooúsios" doctrine that
had been established in the Nicene Creed. His name was Athanasius who had
been the personal secretary and a presbyter of Bishop Alexander. When
Alexander in 327 had died, Athanasius succeeded him as Bishop of Alexandria,
and for him there was no compromise possible. He upheld the notion that Christ
was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father and he became the most
outspoken supporter of the doctrine. Had it not been for him and his zeal against
Arius, it is quite likely that the present view of Jesus in the Church would have
been Arian in nature.

Hardly had Athanasius come on the scene the tide had turned in favour of the
Arius party thanks to Eusebius who became in effect the leader of the Arian
cause. This time it was the leaders of the "homooúsios" party that were exiled and
that included Athanasius.

THE TIDE TURNS IN FAVOUR OF ARIUS

This transformation of fortunes for the Arius party began when in 330
Constantine founded the city of Constantinople (present day Instanbul), at the
ancient town of Byzantium. It became the new capital of the Roman Empire and
it is from here that Constantine ruled. As a result the empire was in effect divided
into two regional zones - West (Rome) and East (Constantinople) - although
Constantine ruled both regions. This division was also shadowed by the Christian
Church. In the West the Church of Rome supported the "homooúsios" party as
championed by Athanasius, who was at this time in exile. He had been banished
to Gaul in 335 at the imposition of Eusebius, through the emperor.

48
 In the East the opposite was true and opposition to the Nicene formula was
well-nigh universal, and was maintained with fanatical zeal by the court and by
Eusebius. He and his supporters espoused the cause of Arius more openly, and
through Constantia, the sister of the emperor, Arius was formally recalled from
banishment to Constantinople in 336. It was to be a moment of triumph for Arius
but on the day preceding his intended restoration, he suddenly died at the age of
over eighty years. It was thought by his friends that he had been poisoned. A year
after the death of Arius, Constantine himself died, but not before he had been
baptised by the Arian Eusebius.

Following the death of his father in 337, Constantine II initially became

emperor jointly with his brothers Constantius and Constans. The three brothers
divided the Roman world between themselves. Constantius received the eastern
provinces, including Constantinople, Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and
Cyrenaica; Constantine received Britannia, Gaul, Hispania, and Mauretania; and
Constans received Italy, Africa, Illyricum, Pannonia, Macedonia, and Greece.

As the three emperors jostled for power Eusebius in 338 became bishop of the
Church of Constantinople, a position he would hold until his death. A year later
Athanasius was deposed a second time as Bishop of Alexandria and took refuge
with Julius I (337 - 352) Bishop of Rome. Julius favoured the "homooúsios"
party, which he considered was the "orthodox" faith over that of the Arius party,
and through his intercession he convinced Constantine II to free Athanasius,
allowing him to return to Alexandria. This action aggravated Constantius in the
East who was a committed supporter of the Arian party. However, before he

49
 could do anything his two brothers in the West clashed over the western
provinces of the empire. Constantine marched into Italy at the head of his troops
but was killed in an ambush outside Aquileia. Constans therefore took control of
his deceased brother's realm and the West.

Inside the divided empire the theology of Arius and Eusebius prevailed, but
even here some Arians had different views. Some attempts were made to find a
substitute word for "homoousios" and the term "homoiousios" (similar in
substance) became a strong contender. So it was that with the death of Constans
in 350 his pro-Arian brother Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire. The
new Emperor demanded that all the bishops of his Empire should agree with the
homoiousios ("similar") formula and to this end in 359 he summoned two
Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in the West at Rimini. Both
Councils, under the Emperor's threats and with rationalising arguments aimed at
calming consciences, were induced to sign the homoiousios formula.

This "homoiousios" victory was confirmed and imposed on the whole Church
by the Council of Constantinople in 360 which condemned the terms homoousios
("identical") and replaced it with homoiousios ("not similar"). Arius and his
supporters had won - or so it had seemed? Athanasius, now allied with the
Bishop of Rome now holding the title of Pontifex Maximus (Pope) waited in the
wings ready to strike back when the time was ripe.

THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHURCH

It now seemed that the Arians had triumphed over the Nicene creed but it was
to be short-lived. First the Arius party had only gained its popularity solely by
imperial imposition, but with the death of Constantius in 361 the "homoousios"
party began once again to assert itself once again.

Athanasius began the counter attack on the Arians by reasserting the

homoousios ("identical substance") position, while at the same time introducing
an additional component to the mix. He began to raise the issue that besides God
the Father and Jesus the Son, the Holy Spirit was also of identical substance. In
other words there were three Personifications of God that had always existed, co-
eternal and shared the same identical substance. Athanasius had now sowed the
seeds of a new non-biblical doctrine - the Holy Trinity.

In 361, after the death of Emperor Constantius, shortly followed by the murder
of the very unpopular Arian Bishop of Alexandria, George, Athanasius now had
the opportunity to return to his patriarchate. The following year he convened a
council at Alexandria at which he appealed for unity among all those who had
faith in Christianity, even if they differed on matters of terminology. Although a
call to reconciliation, in reality it was the opportunity to prepare the groundwork
for the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity that would be the hallmark for
Catholic orthodoxy.

50
 The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or
hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three
persons are distinct, yet are the one "substance, essence or nature" - homoousios
again. A nature is what you are, while a person is who you are. Little wonder that
this doctrine is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith. It was designed to
confuse but above all to destroy the doctrine of Arius that Jesus had been created
and was the first born of all creation.

As the concept of the Trinity took shape the Church of Rome had become the
dominant force in matters of Christian dogma. Many anti-Arians flocked to the
Roman Church through whom the Pope was saying that the Church represented
the orthodox and Catholic (meaning universal) view and the Trinity was adopted
as the battle cry for orthodoxy (Nicene Christianity).

As it happens the word Catholic was not new. In the "Catechetical Discourses"
of Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - 386), the term "Catholic Church" is used to
distinguish it from other groups that also called themselves the church. In this
respect Cyrus directed his statement towards the Arius party as being the true
Catholic Church. As for Cyril himself, he at first had taken on a rather moderate
position to the theological conflict but he was by no means eager to accept the
homoousios doctrine. Consequently, he sided with the pro-Arius bishop Eusebius
but in doing so he got into difficulties with his superior Acacius of Caesarea.
Acacius had replaced the Arian Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had died in
339 and has a popular following.

A council held under Acacius's influence in 358 deposed Cyril and forced him
to retire to Tarsus. However, a conciliatory Council at Seleucia, at which Cyril
was present, deposed Acacius the following year. But in 360 this decision was
reversed through the Metropolitan's court influence and Cyril once again suffered
another year's exile from Jerusalem. Fortunately for Cyril the accession to the
throne of the emperor Julian's (361 to 363) paved the way for him to return to
Caesarea.

The emperor Julian was nicknamed "Julian the Apostate" because he rejected
Christianity altogether in favour of Neoplatonic paganism. This meant that no
longer was an Arian emperor in charge and so the "homoousios" party (Nicene
Christianity) now jumped at the chance and before long began to rise in
ascendancy. There was a temporary resurgence of Arianism under the next
emperor Valens (328 - 378) of the Eastern Empire but he was killed while
fighting the Goths at the Battle of Adrianople. His successor Theodosius I (Latin:
Flavius Theodosius Augustus, 347 - 395), also known as Theodosius the Great,
was the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the
Roman Empire and he was anti-Arian.

In 380 Theodosius entered Constantinople at the head of his army and with an
entourage of Spaniards, he determined to bring the capital of the Roman world -
the "seat and fortress of Arianism" (Gibbon) - into the camp of Catholic
Trinitarianism. A year later the second General Council of Constantinople was

51
 convened whereupon the Arian party was cast out once and for all. The council
made sure that Arianism would not return by defining what was orthodoxy, and
this included adopting the mysterious Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy
Spirit, who, though equal to the Father, 'proceeded' from Him, whereas the Son
was 'begotten' of Him.

The Council also clarified jurisdictions of the state church of the Roman
Empire according to the civil boundaries of dioceses and it was agreed that
Constantinople was to be second in precedence to Rome. The Bishop of Rome
however had now been elevated to the chief arbiter of the Christian religion and
was to have the final word in any doctrinal dispute. The Catholic Church of Rome
had triumphed over its Arian adversaries and had become the most powerful
voice in Christendom.

As for Cyril, he sold out to the bribe of overseeing the see of Jerusalem and
voted for acceptance of the term homoousios, having been finally convinced, so
he said, that there was no better alternative. Meanwhile, the newly acquired
power by the Bishop of Rome enabled the Church of Rome to extend its influence
and enforce conformity of its doctrines and priestly structure. However, to
persecute those who did not conform, required the Church of Rome to clarify its
own doctrine and ideology stance and to define exactly what was and was not
heresy. To do this end the Church needed to weed out written documents that did
not support its doctrines. The problem was that during the proceeding centuries
there were many writings and even some forgeries that were still highly regarded
by many Christian communities. This necessitated a cull of these writing and an
acceptance of a canon (= rule or official list) of writings that could be accepted by
all. This was to take the form of the canon of the New Testament. All writings that
were not included in the canon were to be banned and destroyed.

THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Church of Rome was not the first to review Christian writings with the
view to form a canon that all Christians could have confidence in. It was the
emperor Constantine who had begun the process when he ordered fifty copies of
scriptures and it is believed that while their exact contents are not certain, some
surmise that these copies may have contained the 27 books of the final New
testament Canon.

It would not be until about 367 AD that the final "New Testament" had been
agreed and was described in the Easter Letter of that year by - yes you guessed it
- Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria. Little wonder that his contribution to the
Roman Catholic cause is praised by the Catholic Encyclopaedia as "the greatest
champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has
ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of "Father of
Orthodoxy", by which he has been distinguished ever since." [9]

In the letter Athanasius wrote:

52
 "Again it is not tedious to speak of the of the New Testament. These
are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic),
seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one
of Jude. In addition there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this
order. Then first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after
these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians;
then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that
to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly,
that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

In addition to the books of the canon, Athanasius mentions "that there are
other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the
Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in
the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and
Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the
Apostles [Didache], and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included
in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read."

THE BOOK OF ENOCH IS SUPPRESSED

The Church of Rome now undertook to define the final canon and to ensure
that any other writings not accepted into the canon were to be destroyed. Pope
Siricius (384 - 399) finally approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope
Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382. Even so the early fifth century Codex
Alexandrinus made "no demarcation between I and II Clement" and the rest of
the New Testament.

Jerome (342 - 420), the translator of the Vulgate and one of the greatest
scholars of the Catholic church, appears to have believed that the epistles of
Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermes were worthy of inclusion. However, he
recognised that they were not in the accepted canon, and he did not believe that
anyone had the authority to add them.

Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament had been
based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text
instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most
other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint was inspired.
Jerome also noted that many still rejected Jude because of its quotation from the
Book of Enoch concerning the angels that had sex with women.

By this time the once highly regarded Book of Enoch had fallen into disrepute.
The book had supported the Arian doctrine namely that "The Elect One", "The
Son of Man" was not the same as God. As far as the Church of Rome was
concerned, the book had to go. But how to get rid of a book that had been so
highly esteemed? The answer - by a clever piece of subterfuge. The Book of Enoch
was rejected based upon the argument that unlike the (rest of the) Bible which

53
 was carefully copied and checked for errors by Jewish and Christian scribes
throughout its history, the Book of Enoch was available in a number of ancient
manuscripts that differed slightly from one another and it was said that many
errors have crept in. Consequently, it was argued, there is no way of knowing
which versions were (exactly faithful to) the original. Although it was admitted
that while the errors did not change its stories in any substantial manner, it did
make it impossible to anchor beliefs or arguments on any given section. [11]

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), was bishop of Hippo Regius (present-day

Annaba, Algeria). He was a Latin philosopher and theologian from the Africa
Province of the Roman Empire and he is generally considered as one of the
greatest Christian thinkers of all time. His writings were very influential in the
development of Western Christianity and translations remain in print to this day.
When the Western Roman Empire began to disintegrate, Augustine developed
the concept of the Roman Catholic Church as a spiritual City of God (in a book of
the same name), distinct from the material earthly city. His thoughts profoundly
influenced the medieval world view and his book was closely identified with the
Catholic Church, the community that now worshipped the Trinity. [12]

Augustine said that works like Enoch although quoted by Jude could not be
trusted "because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account
they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that
are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent
they do not belong to them."

When Augustine said that Enoch could not be trusted because it contained
some things that were contrary to the truth of the canonical books, he was
thinking of Genesis 6. He knew that Jesus had said that angels did not marry or
were not given into marriage (Matthew 22:10) so he interpreted this to mean that
they were sexless and therefore could not have sex with women. The Book of
Enoch therefore contradicted this by saying that angels did have sex with women,
so the book of Enoch Augustine reckoned could not be trusted. Augustine
conveniently forgot that there were numerous examples in the scriptures that
showed that angels had taken on human form, and therefore in that capacity they
could have had sex with women had the chosen to do so.

What should we make of Genesis 6:4 which said, "The Nephilim were on the
earth in those days - and also afterwards - when the sons of God went to the
daughters of men and had children by them." Ah! The answer was that by the
time of Augustine a new interpretation of this verse of Genesis had arisen. This
was what today is called the Sethite view. Basically, this doctrine taught that the
"sons of God" in Genesis 6 were not fallen angels, but rather were the "godly line
of Seth." And that the "daughters of men" were the "wicked daughters of Cain."

The Sethite doctrine came about when enemies of the Church, such as Julian
"the Apostate" and Celsus, exploited and twisted the Church's original view of
this topic in order to attack early Christianity. Later the theory of Seth's
descendants being the "sons of God" was introduced by a contemporary of the

54
 famous Origen, namely Julius Africanus. In time, and as a result of such
sabotage, the truth about the "sons of God" being angels was deliberately
removed from theological debate and by the time of Augustine this doctrine had
already been adopted as Holy Writ.

It should noted that the Ethiopian Church never adopted this doctrine due in
part to the fact that the Book of Enoch, which clearly holds to the original view of
the sons of gods being angels, was included into their canonised Bible, as will be
discussed later in this chapter.

Augustine embraced the Sethite theory completely and as a result of his

considerable influence this fabricated doctrine became established orthodox
dogma of the Church and it is still widely taught even today among many
churches who find the idea of literal "angels" view disturbing. Understandably,
attacked from all sides the Book of Enoch disappeared from view and with it the
story of the Watchers and the Nephilim. It seemed that the book would be
assigned to oblivion but incredibly, it survived to fight another day.

THE DOMINATION ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

By the end of the sixth century the stage was set for the development of the
Roman Catholic Church in its final form and to build upon a papal system of
authority that would dominate western civilisation for almost 950 years. This was
a time when there was political chaos in western Europe. The influence of Roman
culture had waned and new forms of thought were becoming prominent because
of the intermingling of Teutonic and Roman ideas. The Roman Church was in
crisis. Outside of Italy it had lost much of its prestige and the influence of the
Roman pontiff had become very weak in Spain, Gaul and Greece, and had almost
vanished in Africa. The so called barbarians of France and Germany, had also
adopted the teachings of Arius and the acceptance of the Trinity was primarily
confined to Italy and the lands over which the Eastern Orthodox Church in
Constantinople held sway.

To observers the Roman Catholic Church would seem to be in rapid decline of

influence and material resources, but things were about to change. A man rose to
the occasion and his name was Gregory. Born in 540 he was the son of a rich,
senatorial family in Rome. At an early age he entered into governmental service
and when the Germanic tribe of the Lombards were threatening to take Italy, it
was he who organised the state into an effective political and military
organisation to drive the barbarians back.

Gregory later decided to enter the clergy and selling all his possessions and he
became a monk of the Benedictine Order. However, his governmental expertise
was recognised by Pelagius II the Bishop of Rome, and Gregory was sent on
diplomatic missions to deal with the emperor and bishop of the eastern section of
the Roman Empire now called the Byzantine Empire.

55
 In 590 Gregory became Bishop of Rome and immediately came in conflict with
John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who also claimed to uphold the Catholic
faith. In this Gregory differed and he believed in the supremacy of the Roman
Church and that there was no salvation outside of this religious organisation.
Gregory therefore pressed on with his reforms while promoting Catholic
Christianity as the only true church. This would lead eventually to the Great
Schism of 1054, when medieval Christianity split into two branches. The Eastern
Church became the Greek Orthodox Church by severing all ties with Rome and
the Roman Catholic Church - from the pope to the Holy Roman Emperor on
down.

Gregory transformed the bishopric of Rome into the papal system we know
today. He formalised ritual and Church doctrine and placed great emphasis upon
the altar and a re-sacrificing of Christ in the mass. He pushed forward the
concept of purgatory and hell-fire and gave impetus to the worshipping of saints
and martyrs. Gregory also enforced celibacy of the clergy and monastic discipline
whenever he could. Above all he promoted the Trinity doctrine, a legacy that
remains to this day throughout most Christian Churches no matter their
particular persuasion.

With Pope Gregory at the helm of the Catholic Church its power and influence
spread far and wide into the barbarian lands with Arian theology quickly
supplanted by that of the doctrines of Rome. The Catholic Encyclopaedia
"Advent" writes, " The Emperor Valens (364-378) lent his powerful support to
the Arians, and the peace of the Church was only secured when the orthodox
Emperor Theodosius reversed the policy of his predecessors and sided with
Rome. Within the boundaries of the Roman empire the faith of Nicaea, enforced
again by the General Council of Constantinople (381), prevailed, but Arianism
held its own for over two hundred years longer wherever the Arian Goths held
sway: in Thrace, Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul. The conversion of King Recared of
Spain, who began to reign in 586, marked the end of Arianism in his dominions,
and the triumph of the Catholic Franks sealed the doom of Arianism
everywhere." [13]

The Book of Enoch was among many books that were confined to the flames
and apparently lost forever. One may recall the famous lines of Heine's 1821 play
Almansor "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt
man auch am Ende Menschen." ("That was but a prelude; where they burn
books, they will ultimately burn people also.") The burning of heretics was first
decreed in the eleventh century by the Roman Catholic Church.

The teachings of Arius and others later such as the Cathars (a Christian
religious sect in southern France in the 12th and 13th centuries) were condemned
as heretical. However, the Book of Enoch survived in a land where the long arm
of the Pope had little influence over the selection of books that could be
considered inspired - Ethiopia.

56
THE BOOK SURVIVES AGAINST ALL THE ODDS
Ethiopia lying south of Egypt had traditions going back to King Solomon, the
Ark of the Covenant, and in particular the Queen of Sheba. Their Orthodox
Church has a significant substratum of ancient Israelite religious practices and
vocabulary and until recently the country supported a substantial community
known as the Beta Israel (pejoratively Falasha), whose religion and traditions
linked them to the First Temple built by King Solomon in the tenth century BC
which was destroyed in 586 BC.

Historical evidence suggests that, during the reign of Manasseh in Israel, a

colony of Jews - including Levitical priests - migrated from Israel and founded a
colony on Elephantine Island in Egypt, building a replica temple on the spot.
They had evidently taken with them the Ark of the Covenant and the ancient
scrolls that had been passed down from generation to generation that described
their history.

About 200 years later, according to British researcher Graham Hancock in his
book "The Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant"
published in 1992 a tribe of the Jews left Egypt and following the tributaries to
the Nile River they arrived at an island in Lake Tana where they finally
established themselves. Eight hundred more years, the Ark of the Covenant was
passed into the hands of the newly established Ethiopian Church, who took it to
their capital of Axum, where it remains today.

The Ethiopian Church itself claims it's earliest origins came from the royal
official said to have been baptised by Philip the Evangelist (not to be confused
with Philip the Apostle), one of the seven deacons:

"Then the angel of the Lord said to Philip, Start out and go south to the
road that leads down from Jerusalem to Gaza. So he set out and was on
his way when he caught sight of an Ethiopian. This man was a eunuch,
a high official of the Kandake (Candace) Queen of Ethiopia in charge of
all her treasure." (Acts, 8:26-27)

The scripture continues by describing how Philip helped the Ethiopian

treasurer understand a passage from Isaiah that the Ethiopian was reading.
Clearly the Ethiopian was familiar with the book of Isaiah, no doubt because of it
being one of the Jewish writings to be found in Ethiopia.

The story goes that after the Ethiopian received an explanation of the passage
that referred to Jesus the Messiah he requested that Philip baptise him, and
Philip did so. What happened after that is open to conjecture, but what can be
said is that Christianity became the established church of the Ethiopian Axumite
Kingdom under King Ezana in the fourth century through the efforts of a Syrian
Greek named Frumentius, known in Ethiopia as Abba Selama, Kesaté Birhan

57
 ("Father of Peace, Revealer of Light").

Frumentius converted Emperor Ezana to Christianity, causing him to be

baptised in 333. As a result Ethiopia became the first country as a whole that had
adopted the Christian religion, two years before Constantine the Great did the
same for the Roman Empire. It was during this time that many Christian writings
were collected, while the Book of Enoch was already part of the Old Testament
canon accepted by the Ethiopian religious community.

The Ethiopian emperor sent Frumentius to Alexandria to ask Athanasius who

was bishop of that great centre of learning, to appoint a bishop for Ethiopia. By
Athanasius' own account he believed Frumentius the most suitable person for the
job and consecrated him as bishop sometime, between 340 - 346. Frumentius
returned to Ethiopia, erected his episcopal see at Axum.

In about 356 the Arian Emperor Constantius II wrote to King Ezana and his
brother Saizanas, requesting them to replace Frumentius with the Arian bishop
Theophilus, because Frumentius had been appointed by Athanasius, the leading
opponent of Arianism. However, the request was rejected and Frumentius
remained as Bishop. By the time Frumentius had died around 383 many
churches had been built and the country had become fully Christian. The Arian
controversy never managed to gain a foothold in Ethiopia because under the
influence Athanasius the Nicene Creed was adopted by Frumentius.

In time the Roman Church would become the dominant force in Christendom,
but Ethiopia remained outside its influence. Consequently, the Ethiopian Church
adopted two canons of the Bible - the "narrower canon" and the "broad canon".
Both canons of the Ethiopian Old Testament contains the Book of Enoch, and the
only difference between each Old Testament canon is that the broader Old
Testament only has one additional book - the Ethiopian version of the Book of
Joseph ben Gurion, which is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based
upon the writings of Josephus.

The Ethiopian Church accepted the Book of Enoch as being inspired of God
and because of this the book that was once thought lost was preserved. However
it would be a thousand years before it would once again see the light of day in the
western world because the Church of Rome made sure that it remained hidden.

THE GREAT TEMPTATION

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent
my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place,"(John 18:36)
so said Jesus to Pilate, the representative of the Roman Empire in Israel.
However, it appears that the Church of Rome had not listened to the voice of the
One that they worshipped and forgot who "the ruler of this world" was. (John
14:30). Events would conspire that would allow the Roman Catholic Church to do
what Jesus himself had rejected (John 4:8) - to build a kingdom on the earth, to

58
 have dominion over nations and to enjoy the glory and riches of them.

As noted earlier it all began when at the end of the sixth century an age of
cultural stagnation had set in known as the Dark Ages. It had been ushered in
with the sacking of Rome by the Goths under Alaric in 410, and later when the
last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, gave up his authority in 486. After
that it was downhill all the way so by the time Gregory became bishop of Rome
severe economic and political dislocation now gripped what had been the Roman
empire. During this period peasants became bound to the land and dependent on
landlords for protection and the rudimentary administration of justice. This state
of affairs would eventually lead to the establishment of feudalism, a way of life
that would dominate European society for a thousand years or more.

Enter the Roman Catholic Church, the only organisation that had a semblance
of a government. This it had developed alongside the former Roman State, and
while the political and secular forms of the secular government had collapsed, the
Church's organisational infrastructure remained intact. Like a spider's web it
stretched its threads of authority across Western Europe centred on the local
bishops of each local community.

Religious and political power became fused into one, but with one significant
difference. Church doctrines determined what was right and what was wrong. All
secular learning was regarded as mere preparation for understanding the holy
text and to prepare for the world to come. This was a very narrow point of view,
one that stifled academic innovation and thinking for centuries. In fact, anything
that contradicted Holy Writ was destroyed and many Greek classic works was
lost to the flames of superstition and prejudice. Scientific inquiry of all kinds was
suppressed and anyone contradicting what the Church said whether by word or
the possession of forbidden writings were condemned as a heretic and worse still
burned at the stake. And to ensure that power remained with the Church,
services and communications, were conducted in Latin, which the common
people did not know.

As far as the Church was concerned the care of the soul was far more
important than care of the body, hence medical treatment and even physical
cleanliness were little valued. In time, nearly all Europeans came to look upon
illness as a condition caused by supernatural forces, which might take the form of
diabolical possession. Hence, cures could only be affected by religious means
through incantations and prayer. Monastic orders did run hospitals of sorts, but
they did not function like the hospitals we know today. They were simply places
where seriously ill people could be taken and where they were expected to either
recover or die as God willed. There were no learned physicians to attend them,
only kindly monks who dispensed comfort and the sacraments, but not
medicines.

In a society that believed that the soul was more important that cleanliness of
the body, you could imagine what it was like. People hurled rubbish and slops out
of their windows into alleys, where open sewers swarmed with rats and flies. Pigs

59
 scavenged the discarded decaying food, and horses and dogs defecated freely.
People, too, often relieved themselves in the streets, and public latrines, if they
existed, might be built on platforms over a river or water filled ditches. Filth and
disease prevailed at all levels of society for centuries and people wore the same
clothes for months on end until they fell to pieces in rags. This then was the
legacy of the Church, a legacy that continued well into Victorian times.

Under the circumstances it is not surprising that when Darwin wrote his
famous book The Origin of Species that it should fall on grateful ears. For the
first time a viable alternative to the theological driven view of the world became a
real possibility and scientists and laymen alike grabbed at the chance. The
problem was that it was like "throwing the baby out with the water". It did not
mean that what was written in the Bible was incorrect, only the interpretation
made by the Church of Rome through its doctrines were in error. Unfortunately,
the common man did not know the difference and neither did scientists like
Darwin. The Bible and the man-made doctrines of the Catholic Church was
tarnished with the same brush.

As conflict between science and the Church grew in intensity during the
nineteenth century, a doctrine of a theological nature also reared its head. The
Book of Enoch long suppressed by the Church was rediscovered completely
intact. The stories of the Nephilim and the Watchers was about to return to haunt
the Church once again.

REDISCOVERY
With the first dawn of the Reformation, the religious movement of the
sixteenth century that began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church
and which resulted in the creation of Protestant movement, rumours of the
existence of the lost book of Enoch began to stir. In fact about the time when
Columbus set sail on his voyages of discovery the German humanist and a scholar
of Greek and Hebrew, Johann Reuchlin (1455 - 1522) became excited by a report
that the famous Pico della Mirandola (1463 - 1494) had purchased a copy of the
book of Enoch for a large sum of money. However, it was never substantiated and
the book never materialised.

Rumours continued to fly. In 1553, the French linguist Guillaume Postel (1510
- 1581) announced that an Ethiopian priest has told him that the Book of Enoch
was held to be canonical in Ethiopia and was to be found in the Church of the
Queen of Sheba in that country. In 1633 a Capucinian monk named Gilles de
Loches, who lived in Egypt, described to Peiresc (1580 - 1637), the famous
scholar and manuscript collector of Pisa, a monastery in Ethiopia that possessed
eight thousand volumes of ancient writings, in which he had seen a book of
Enoch. He said that it was written in the character and language of the
Ethiopians (Abyssinians) among whom it was preserved. With this knowledge
Peiresc was able to obtain the copy of the book but nobody knew if it was genuine
or not and the book ended up in the Mazarin Library in Paris where it remained

60
 untouched for decades. However, in 1683 the Prussian scholar Job Ludolf
amid considerable publicity decided to put it to the test and translate the book.

Ludolf was horrified by what he had read. He said that the content of the book
nauseated him. It contained such gross and vile stinking fables that he could
hardly stand to read it. He wished that people would have kept silent about this
"idiotic of books" were it not that so many illustrious men have made mention of
it. But then Ludolf never believed in the existence of the Book of Enoch anyway
and was convinced, like many others of his day that what he was reading was a
fake. As a result of what Ludolf's said, "all hopes of obtaining the book seem to
have died away throughout Europe . . . It was generally supposed, that it must be
ranked among the books irrecoverably lost."[15]

As a consequence of Ludolf's negative reaction of the book, the study of the

Mazarin Library copy of the book of Enoch was dropped for ninety years and the
idea that a book of Enoch still existing in Ethiopia was completely abandoned.
However, rumours continued to persist and they captured the attention of James
Bruce (1730 - 1794) a Scottish traveller and travel writer who spent more than a
dozen years in North Africa and Ethiopia (Abyssinia). He was famous for tracing
the origins of the Blue Nile.

Bruce sought out the Book of Enoch and in 1773 he returned to Europe in
triumph with three copies of Ge'ez versions [16] as well as a selection of other
Ethiopian manuscripts. One of the copies was deposited in the Bodleian Library,
another was presented to the royal library of France, while the third Bruce kept
himself. Here the copies would remain undisturbed until the nineteenth century
when the first English translation of the Bodleian manuscript was published in
1821 by Richard Laurence. The title of the translation says it all - "The Book of
Enoch, the prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for
ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia; now first
translated from an Ethiopic manuscript in the Bodleian Library." [17]

In 1833, Professor Andreas Gottlieb Hoffmann of the University of Jena

released a German translation, based on Laurence's work. At last the Book of
Enoch was beginning to see daylight in the western world but the Laurence
translation was only based upon one manuscript, the one in the Bodleian Library,
and therefore the quality of the translation could not be proven. However, just as
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was doing its rounds in Europe, in 1893 the famous
scholar Robert Henry Charles published a translation based upon ten additional
manuscripts. In 1912 he published and even more critical edition of the Ethiopic
text, using 23 Ethiopic manuscripts and all available sources at his time.

For the first time a reliable and comprehensive study of the stories of the
Watchers and the Nephilim could now be read, but when four years earlier a new
major discovery of Neanderthal man was unearthed at La Chapelle aux Saints in
France, nobody noticed the connection. The problem was that the Book of Enoch
was initially widely rejected and criticised by Biblical scholars as a fabrication, a
book written by an unknown Jewish Christian sometime during the Christian

61
 era. There was so much material within it that resonated in the New Testament
that scholars could not or did not want to believe that the Ethiopian texts could
contain material that was written earlier than the early days of the Christianity.

So successful had the Roman Catholic Church been in suppressing the book
that scholars were unaware that the book had been instrumental in the
development of the New Testament and naturally it would contain information
that would appear to be Christian. This truth was finally acknowledged much
later from 1983 onwards. "There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in
molding New Testament doctrines about the Messiah, the Son of Man, the
messianic kingdom, demonology, the resurrection, and eschatology" [19]

As arguments over whether the book was actually written by Enoch or whether
it was a forgery and merely a "spurious" work were reignited once again the
world was changing. The theory of evolution was gaining ground dramatically
and it would not be long before anything related to the Biblical account was
ridiculed as the dying embers of Christian religious mania. Then in the same year
that the modern nation of Israel was born after having been trampled upon by
the nations for two thousand years, fragmentary manuscripts of the book was
discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. When they were carbon-14 tested, the
results were astonishing. They dated to at least 200 B.C. Argument that 1 Enoch
was written during the Christian era was quickly dissolved and the findings
seriously challenges those critics who had claimed for years that ancient
sectarians threw everything into Enoch that they wanted to pass off as scripture.
Today it is universally recognised that what is contained in the Ethiopian copies
of the Book of Enoch in substantially the same as that used by the Early
Christians.

I close this chapter by saying that I have demonstrated that the Book of Enoch
was perhaps the most important book outside the Biblical canon. The book was
used extensively by the early Christians and perhaps even Jesus himself, and one
can now say without any doubt that the New Testament would not have been
what it was had it not been for this incredible book. Margaret Barker, author of
The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and its Influence on Christianity writes:

"The greatest importance of Enoch is that it was not only a pre-

Christian book, but also a post-Christian book, a text from their Jewish
background kept and used by the earliest churches. When we use
Enoch as a 'context' for the New Testament, many early Christian ideas
come into a much clearer focus, and many of the gaps in the New
Testament can be bridged." [20]

We also learned that the eventual demise of the book was due to an anti-Arian
backlash by what became the most powerful Christian institution on the planet -
the Roman Catholic Church. Adopting the doctrine of the Trinity as its own the
Church weeded out and destroyed any works that contradicted this new non-

62
 Biblical dogma. Consequently, the Book of Enoch was suppressed and labelled
as heresy in order to first, hide the truth of the fallen angels and secondly,
because through its pages it supported the Arian stance that Jesus, the Messiah,
the Chosen One, the Son of God had been created and therefore there was a time
that he had not existed. As far as the Roman Church was concerned it had to be
destroyed!

So it was that the Book of Enoch was removed from circulation, burned and
disposed off. For a thousand years or more few spoke of it or even knew that it
had existed. However, unknown to the Roman Catholic Church the book had
been preserved for future posterity in a distant land far beyond its reach. In
Ethiopia it was venerated as Holy Writ and existed as part of the canon of the
Church of Ethiopia.

In the eighteenth century the Book of Enoch was rediscovered but it took a
long time for it to be accepted for what it was - namely that it was the same book
used by the early Christians. However, with the discovery in 1947 of substantial
fragments of the book in the Dead Sea Scrolls that proved its ancient lineage the
book it could no longer be doubted as being the most important historical
document that has survived the ravages of time and efforts to destroy it. Hence,
when I make reference to the Watchers and Nephilim in the present work and
quote from the book, especially from the first and oldest book the "Book of
Watchers", the reader can be reassured that it comes from a work that has a
reputation of being both authoritative and reliable. The Nephilim have returned
with a vengeance.

I have included a copy of the 1 Enoch (Book of Watchers) in the appendix of

this work for your reference. It is the translation from the Ethiopian by R.H.
Charles published in 1906 and which is now in the public domain.

Additional information added to 3rd Edition

"There is little doubt that 1 Enoch was influential in moulding New Testament
doctrines about the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom,
demonology, the resurrection, and eschatology. (E. Isaac 1 Enoch, a new
Translation and Introduction in ed. James Charlesworth The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, Vol 1 ISBN 0-385-09630-5 (1983)

"The Book of Enoch is a book that was removed from the Bible and the Torah
for many reasons. Once it was held as an important book by the founding fathers
of the Christian Church1, for it detailed events of the Messiah before his coming,
as well as expanded upon parts of the Old Testament. The text was lost (or more
properly destroyed) in the fourth century when it was deemed heretical, it wasn't
until the eighteenth century that the book resurfaced from an Ethiopian source,
and a very interesting part of Judeo-Christian scripture was brought back to
life." (The Book of Enoch the Prophet, translated by R. H. Charles Weiser Books,
1578632595, 140 pp., 2003)

63
 Ken Johnson seems to take the sober view that while what we know today as
the Ethiopic Book of Enoch has its problems (such as Gnostic accretions), he
believes:

"The main reason Christians should study Enoch is to learn

prophecy. In addition to the many prophecies about Messiah...there
are some very important ones for our time...One completely fulfilled
prophecy is given in chapter 10. Seventy generations after Enoch, sin
would be atoned for. Luke 3:23-38 records that Jesus Christ was the
seventieth generation from Enoch. It is because of Him we may obtain
forgiveness and eternal life...

The Book of Enoch is quoted by church fathers and rabbis alike, all
the way back to the first century. By the year AD 700 it was forgotten
by the church as a whole... Moreover, some ancient church fathers
inform us: "that the Ethiopic version of Enoch (called 1 Enoch) was
considered the real Book of Enoch and that it contained real prophecy.
It was not, however, to be added to the canon of Scripture, but was
considered recommend reading by Scripture much like the Ancient
Book of Jasher."

64
 Chapter 4
THE APEMAN COMETH

"Fossil hunters believe that the Chad ape-man is the oldest member of the
human family to be discovered and could fill in a crucial evolutionary missing
link.... The size of a modern-day chimpanzee, it lived two million years before
the next accepted hominid - the branch of the family tree that includes humans
and ape-men."
(Daily Telegraph, 11th July 2002)

When the Book of Enoch was published in the nineteenth century events were
conspiring that would relegate anything Biblical especially Genesis into the
realms of fantasy. A new myth was in the making, one that would one day
dominate the world wielding its malevolent influence everywhere.

"There is not a single field of scientific and academic study which has
not been greatly modified by the concept of evolution. It provided a
new approach to astronomy, geology, philosophy, ethics, religion, and
the history of social institutions" [1]

It is the premise of this book that the Neanderthal bones are in fact the
remains of the Nephilim as described in Genesis and the Book of Enoch. But for
me to show that this is the case I need first to dispel the aforementioned myth
that has been perpetrated for over a hundred years or more in the name of
science, namely that the Neanderthal bones were those of ape-like ancestors of
man.

65
 "Generations have been taught to believe that Neanderthal Man was a
half-stooped apeman barely able to walk. This initial reconstruction of
the Neanderthals was based on evolutionary bias and occurred before
complete and better preserved bones of the Neanderthals were
discovered showing that they were completely erect and completely
human in every way. By the time many scientists (though not all) came
to be convinced that the Neanderthals were completely human, not
half-ape or becoming human, the factual damage in the popular media
was done and the Neanderthals became forever synonymous with low
intelligent, brutish, knuckle-walking ape-men." [2]

It is not enough to just set this matter straight with regards to Neanderthal
man but it is also necessary to examine the entire structure upon which the
evolutionary origins of man has been built. If it can be shown that man had not
evolved then we should be able move forward to an interpretation that fits the
facts and not what is presented by those who support the fragile and crumbling
house of cards that is called evolution.

What now follows is a presentation of the development of the ape man myth.
We follow each discovery in turn as they are made just as they were reported in
scientific journals and newspapers at the time of their discoveries. In this way
there can be no excuses or criticisms from evolutionists because this is how their
vision for the origins of man was presented by them. I cannot be accused of
misquoting their own words.

With this knowledge, the reader will in the position to make an informed
assessment based upon what evolutionists have presented, whether or not what
they have said and taught is based upon solid scientific principles. If however, the
evidence is found wanting, then I will be in a far better position to put forward a
more realistic and viable theory based upon the subject of this book. So let us
begin...

ENTER CHARLES LYELL

In February 1863 Darwin's friend Charles Lyell published a book entitled "The
Antiquity of Man". It followed his famous book "Principle of Geology" that
had demonstrated that the earth was millions of year old and which had done so
much to influence Darwin with his own book.

Expecting to see Lyell's endorsement of his theory Darwin was to be greatly

disappointed. Darwin wrote: "I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive
caution". Lyell had avoided a definitive statement on human evolution. Instead,
Lyell wrote that it remained a profound mystery how the huge gulf between man
and beast could be bridged, Darwin wrote "Oh!" in the margin of his copy. [3]

66
 Lyell's book dealt with three scientific issues that had become prominent in the
preceding decade: the age of the human race, the existence of ice ages, and of
course Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Lyell's
presentation and endorsement of the new evidence for human antiquity firmly
established the theory as scientific orthodoxy. His integration of both ice ages
and a very old human race into the (geologically) recent history of the Earth was
novel for its time, as was his presentation of archaeological data derived from
continental Europe. However, with the section about evolution Lyell took the
middle ground. While he recapitulated Darwin's arguments and endorsed some
of them, though not enthusiastically, he left open the possibility of divine
intervention in the origins of human intellect and moral sense. This is what had
disappointed Darwin.

The problem as far as Lyell was concerned was that despite being a friend of
Darwin, he could not bring himself to accept the idea of evolution - the transition
from one species to another. While he could accept the idea of "natural selection"
because he could see that just as man could change existing species to different
forms of the same species "artificial selection" he could agree with Darwin that
nature could do the same given the passage of great lengths of time. But that was
a far cry from the transmutation of a species. It was clear to Lyell that the fossil
record showed no direction or progress from simpler organisms to more complex
ones and that the earth had always sustained a full range of living things.

It is interesting to note that because Lyell's book also covered the discoveries
of traces of early man in the palaeolithic (Pleistocene) he could not avoid
discussing the remains of Neanderthal man and in doing so hinted at the ape-
man attributes of the bones based upon the comments of prominent scientists of
his day. Lyell wrote:

"Professor Huxley describes this skull to be the most ape-like of all the
human skulls he has ever seen, and in its examination ape-like
characters are met with in all its parts. (Pg40) Buchner says that the
face of the Neanderthal man must have presented a frightfully bestial
and savage, or ape-like expression (see frontispiece) (Pg 53) Professor
Schaaffhausen and Mr. Busk have stated that "this skull is the most
brutal of all known human skulls, resembling those of the apes not only
in the prodigious development of the superciliary prominences and the
forward extension of the orbits, (Pg 56) but still more in the depressed
form of the brain-case, in the straightness of the squamosal suture, and
in the complete retreat of the occiput forward and upward, from the
superior occipital ridges."(Pg 84)

Not surprisingly, the suggestion that Neanderthal man had ape-like

characteristics gradually took root in those who supported Darwin's theory. Over
the next fifty years it would become the cornerstone of the entire evolution
structure upon which the origins of man would eventually be based. As Herbert

67
 Wendt wrote in 1971 "It was when a country parson stumbled upon what
proved to be the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man in the Neanderthal, a small
valley near Dusseldorf, in 1856 that the search for the 'missing link' began in
earnest, and the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" in 1859, and of
his The Descent of Man" twelve years later, lent weight to the evolutionary
theory.

HUXLEY RAISES THE STAKES

If Lyell was not prepared to endorse Darwin's theory of evolution through

natural selection Thomas Huxley had no such scruples. Huxley had become one
of Darwin's most immediate and vociferous defenders, publishing numerous
articles and essays supporting Darwin's theories on natural selection. A few
months later after Lyell's book Huxley responded with the publication of a
similar book of his own called "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature". In
the book he expressed his view that the evolution of man and apes had come
from a common ancestor and as a consequence they were both primates.

Huxley's book was the first book to be devoted to the topic of human evolution
directly. His main argument was the embryological similarities between different
species. After half a dozen preliminary pages Huxley introduced a study of
development where he declared that every living creature commenced its
existence under a form different from, and simpler to, that which it eventually
attained. He then followed the embryological development of a dog, and its
similarities with other vertebrates, before turning his attention to man and it is
here that our attention is drawn to Neanderthal man.

Under a subheading "On Some Fossil Remains of Man" Huxley discussed

in detail the Neanderthal skull uncovered in the Neander valley. Refuting the
theory of Rudolf Virchow, who you might remember suggested that the
Neanderthal man was merely a man who had died suffering from a severe case of
rickets, Huxley came to the conclusion that the skull represented typical race-

68
 characteristicss; and that this race was inherently related to man today. As to
what that relationship was Huxley leaves no doubt "Without question... [man's]
early stages of development... [are] far nearer the apes, than apes are to the dog".
To make his point he then proceeded to compare the anatomical structures of
apes and man as well as skulls and brains while at the same time rejecting the
idea that man should occupy an order separate from the apes. Just as apes were
primates so was man.

"Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature" became Huxley's most important

work, offering the first synthesis of the anatomical and embryological evidence of
human evolution. The front illustration facing the title page of the book gave no
illusion as to what the book was all about. It was an illustration comparing the
skeletons of various apes to that of man. It was the first example of its kind that
showed the apparent descent from apes to man - and he doubled the size of the
Gibbon to emphasise the illusion that he now presented, a visual deception that
would be followed by others in the years to come.

Once again the idea that somehow man was related to apes had been suggested
and before long people thought of nothing else. The idea was now being openly
discussed although it is true to say sometimes in derogatory terms. However,
when Darwin published his next book "The Descent of Man" which was
published in 1871, there was an expectation that he would shed more light on the
subject but instead there was disappointment. Darwin was not prepared to say
that he thought that man descended from the apes, only perhaps from ape-like
progenitors, and even in this he was vague and ambiguous.

THE DESCENT OF MAN

Darwin said that the sole object of his book The Descent of Man "was to
consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some
pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the
value of the differences between the so-called races of man." As to the first
option, it was clear what he had in mind because throughout the book he used
the words "ape-like" on no less than thirteen occasions. Here are a few of them
quote here.

"We have seen in the first chapter that the homological structure of
man, his embryological development and the rudiments which he still
retains, all declare in the plainest manner that he is descended from
some lower form. The possession of exalted mental powers is no
insuperable objection to this conclusion. In order that an ape-like
creature should have been transformed into man, it is necessary that
this early form, as well as many successive links, should all have varied
in mind and body. " (chapter4) [bold mine]

69
 "Judging from the habits of savages and of the greater number of the
Quadrumana, primeval men, and even the ape-like progenitors of
man, probably lived in society. "[bold mine]

"Whether primeval man, when he possessed very few arts of the rudest
kind, and when his power of language was extremely imperfect, would
have deserved to be called man, must depend on the definition which
we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-
like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on
any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used." [bold mine]

It is clear from what he wrote that Darwin believed that man had "evolved"
from some ape-like creature but he was not prepared, it seems, to declare it in
those terms. He only hinted at the possibility. He did make one comment about
the Neanderthal skull saying, "Nevertheless it must be admitted that some skulls
of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed
and capacious." In other words he recognised that the scull brain capacity was
large, and in Victorian times this indicated intelligence.

While Darwin's name created demand for the book, what was presented was
old news. It did not have the same affect as his earlier The Origin of Species.
However, by the time the book was published, the idea that man had descended
from apes (or ape-like humanoids) was being talked about as if it was a foregone
conclusion that it was true. All that was required was the evidence to prove it.
However, the next discovery did little to support such an idea.

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SUPERMEN

70
 In 1868 a road construction at Cro-Magnon, near the village of Les Eyzies,
France revealed a rock shelter tucked into a limestone cliff. French paleontologist
Édouard Lartet and his son Louis (1840 - 1899) was asked to conduct excavations
after workmen stumbled upon extinct animal bones, flint tools, and human skulls
in the rock shelter. Toward the back of the cave the Lartets found the remains of
five adult skeletons (3 adult males, an adult female, and a child) and some other
fragmentary bones were found. They had been buried with stone tools, carved
reindeer antlers, ivory pendants, and shells. The condition and placement of
these items led researchers to believe that the skeletons had been intentionally
buried within the shelter in a single grave. One male skeleton now designated
Cro-Magnon 1 was about 50 years of age although his teeth were missing so one
wonders how such an age was established.

Lartet's description of their position in the cave is as follows :

"As for the human remains and the position they occupied in bed, the
following are the results of my careful enquiries in the matter. At the
back of the cave was found an old man's skull, which alone was on a
level with the surface, in the cavity not filled up in the back of the cave,
and was therefore exposed to the calcareous drip from the roof, as is
shown by its having a stalagmitic coating on some parts. The other
human bones, referable to four other skeletons, were found around the
first, within a radius of about 1.50 metres. Among these bones were
found, on the left of the old man, the skeleton of a woman, whose skull
presents in front a deep wound made by a cutting instrument, but
which did not kill her at once, as the bone has been partly repaired
within ; indeed our physicians think that she survived several weeks.
By the side of the woman's skeleton was that of an infant which had not

71
 arrived at its full time of foetal development. The other skeletons seem
to have been those of men." [4]

The skeletons might be considered as being the remains of modern humans

except that there was something about them that made them stand out from the
crowd. For one thing the male skulls had a high cranium, and a broad and
upright face. Not in itself unusual when take alone but the cranial capacity clearly
exceeded that of average for modern humans. Cro-Magnon 1 had a brain capacity
of about 1600 cubic centimetres (98 cu in). Using new technology, researchers
have since produced a replica of the brain and found that it is about 15-20%
larger than our brains.

"The Cro-Magnon are characterized by their tall stature, their skeleton

particularly robust, their heads large in the face orthognathic and
modern look. Indicates them all in a powerful physical organization
and a greater brain development. (…) The members are long and
robust (…) leg is very long compared to the thigh, characters that differ
from those observed in modern Europeans (…) The extremities are
particularly large and robust. All long bones, massive insertions have
prominent peaks, evidence of a powerful musculature."

In comparison to modern humans Cro-Magnon was a superman. We it seems

appear to be poor representations of who they were. In his book From Ape to
Adam Herbet Wendt went so far as to say that we had degenerated. "If he was
the ancestor of modern man - the view now accepted - there would appear to
have been a process of degeneration from that point to the present day." [5] The
major puzzle for anthropologists is that Cro-Magnon man appears to have
arrived with his culture from no discernable origin. He does not show any
discernable development and his culture was distinctly superior to others around
him. Of course, as far as this book is concerned what we were really seeing were
the remains of the fathers of the Nephilim, namely the rebellious Watchers who
once ruled over mankind as gods. But more of that later...

THE MISSING LINK

The finding of Cro-Magnon did little to arrest the mad frenzy to find evidence
to support the evolution of man through ape-like predecessors. The issue was
this. For a theory to become science fact it requires substantial evidence to
support it. While the suggestion that man had evolved from an ape-like ancestors
had captured the imagination of many scientists, the comparison of the anatomy
of apes and man for similarities, brain sizes, and the study of embryology was to
easily open to misinterpretation. There was a need for concrete evidence before
evolution of man through lower forms of life could be universally promoted as
truth.

72
 It was still early days and the lack of evidence for the evolution of man did not
stop scientists speculating as to what this meant. In 1874 Ernst Haeckel (1834 -
1919) who promoted and popularised Charles Darwin's work in Germany
published a book entitled The Evolution of Man. Haeckel was a zoologist, an
accomplished artist and illustrator, and later a professor of comparative
anatomy. In his book he provided an illustration, one among many, that showed
the evolutionary progress of man from an amoeba through various forms of
transitional forms ending up with an ape-man progression to modern man.

The illustration that Haeckel drew, crude that it was, nonetheless expressed
what Darwinians (supporters of Darwin) believed or wanted to believe. Man had
evolved from ape-like ancestors who in turned had evolved from lower forms of
life. Now it was a question of finding evidence to support such a claim. This
would involve the finding of transitional fossils, which as we have already seen,
Lyell had commented on them being missing in the geological record. So the
search for the "missing link", the non-scientific term for any transitional fossil,
especially one connected with human evolution, began in earnest.

73
JAVA MAN

The first man to take on the challenge was Eugène Dubois (1858 - 1940). He
had become interested in the search for an ape-man link to man when as a young
man he attended lectures in Roermond on Charles Darwin's new theory of
evolution given by the German politician and biologist, Karl Vogt (1817-1895).

Karl Vogt was a supporter of Darwin's theory but used the theory to support
his personal racist views. He became proponent of polygenist evolution, and
rejected the monogenism beliefs of most Darwinists. He believed that each race
had evolved from different types of ape. Through his writings the beginnings of
racism began to manifest itself within Germany and this would have dire
consequences in the future. It gave rise to Social Darwinism an ideology of
society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary
theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between
groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups out-competed
inferior ones. Darwinian concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the
fittest to justify social policies motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism,
imperialism, fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.
However we digress. Back to the plot.

For Dubois, what he heard at the lecture was a eureka moment. And then,
when news of the fresh discovery of new Neanderthal fossils at the Belgian town
of Spy, he was inspired. He spent his vacation fossil hunting. In the Henkeput
near the village of Rijckholt, where a prehistoric flint mine had just been
discovered in 1881, he found some prehistoric human skulls. He was now hooked
both with Darwin's theory and the idea of the ape-man.

Dubois was now determined to be the first to find an ape-like ancestor of man.
But where does one look for such a creature? In his Descent of Man (1871)
Darwin had reasoned that our human ancestors must have lived in the tropics,
since human beings had lost their fur pelts in the course of their development
and had become naked as a result. (It did not occur to Darwin that if man lost his

74
 fur during his evolution, why did not the other animals in the tropics.) He
suggested Africa, where chimpanzees and gorillas lived, as the most probable
region of human origins. Wallace, on the other hand, had stressed the
importance of searching for the ancestors of present day anthropoids in caves
and Tertiary deposits in both Africa and south-east Asia.

Haeckel claimed that the origin of humanity was to be found in Asia: he

believed that Hindustan (South Asia) was the actual location where the first
humans had evolved. He argued that humans were closely related to the primates
of South-east Asia and rejected Darwin's hypothesis of Africa. Dubois agreed with
Haeckel and was persuaded to look to the East for the fabled missing link. As
Java was in the East Indies and was a Dutch colony Dubois took the opportunity
to sign up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies (now
Indonesia), intending to hunt for fossils during all his spare time. Dubois, it
should be noted, had no formal training in geology or palaeontology at the time,
and his "archaeological team" consisted of prison convicts with two army
corporals as supervisor

Years of excavation produced little of anything of significance. Then, in 1891,

along Java's Solo River, the labourers dug up a skullcap that appeared to be
rather apelike. The find consisted of a peculiarly flattened skullcap with a
prominent ridge of bone, and a few teeth. Dubois initially thought that the skull
was that from a chimpanzee, even though there is no evidence that this ape ever
lived in Asia.

A year later a femur (thigh-bone) was dug up twelve metres away from where
the skull and teeth had originally been excavated that was clearly human. Dubois
was quite prepared to believe that it had belonged to the same individual to
which the skull had belonged and that what he had found constituted the missing
link that everyone was searching for.

Dubois called his ape-man Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from

Greek and Latin roots meaning 'upright ape-man'. In 1894 Dubois finally

75
 published a complete report of his discovery. Therein he wrote:
"Pithecanthropus is the transitional form which, in accordance with the doctrine
of evolution, must have existed between man and the anthropoids." Haeckel, who
had not even seen the bones, telegraphed Dubois: "From the inventor of
Pithecanthropus to his happy discoverer!"

Convinced that he had found the "missing link" between ape and man, Dubois
returned to Europe a year later expecting to be hailed a scientific hero. Although
he did receive some official honours in recognition of his efforts, some scientists
ridiculed him. The problem was that the circumstances of Dubois' find had been
unorthodox. He had apparently been absent when the convicts dug up the fossils.
Maps and diagrams of the site were not made until after the excavation - and
Dubois was not a recognised professional geologist.

Around 1900 the disheartened Dubois retired from academic life. He ceased to
discuss Java Man, and hid the fossils in his home while he moved on to other
research topics. It was not until 1923 that Dubois, with news of the discovery of
similar fossils in China and pressured by scientists who wanted to do a
comparison, that he relented and once again allowed access to the Java Man
fossils. It was clear to everyone else that the Chinese fossils were very similar to
Dubois' original find, but Dubois fiercely resisted this idea, claiming that they
were all human in grade, while his, and only his, fossil filled the gap between
humans and apes.

Dubois went to his grave in 1940 convinced that he had found the missing link.
In a eulogy, Arthur Keith accurately described him as "... an idealist, his ideas
being so firmly held that his mind tended to bend facts rather than alter his ideas
to fit them. Today, Java Man has been reclassified as being that of the species
Homo erectus (meaning upright man) by many anthropologists. The species, it is
said, originated in Africa and spread as far as Spain, Georgia, India, China and
Java." [5]

NEANDERTHAL BECOMES AN APE-MAN

By the turn of the twentieth century the search for an ape-man missing link
was getting nowhere. And to make matters worse, few if any anthropologists were
convinced by Dubois' claim that he had found it. Then in 1908 a remarkable
skeleton was found at Chapelle-aux-Saints, in France. It had been found in a
burial excavated into the limestone bedrock in the floor of a small cave near La
Chapelle-aux-Saints, France, by A. and J. Bouyssonie and L. Bardon, a priest.

The find comprised of a nearly complete skeleton of an adult male of about

fifty years of age with the same features as that of Neanderthal man. He had been
buried on his back, head facing the west, with the right arm bent and the legs
drawn up toward the body. Around him lay numerous fragments of quartz, flint,
ochre, and animal bones. There were hearths inside the cave and many animal
bones, including those of reindeer, bison, horse, and ibex, probably representing

76
 the remains of a number of meals.

Understanding the importance of the find Jean Bouyssonie sent the skeleton to
the National Museum of Natural History in Paris to be studied. There Professor
Marcellin Boule (1861 - 1942) an ardent Darwinian, immediately confirmed the
identity of the skeleton as that being of the same type as the bones found in the
Neander valley. Neanderthal man was back in the news.

Boule studied the skeletons and published his findings. He described the
skeleton that was almost complete as being that of an old man who was brutish in
appearance, bent in knee and who was not a fully erect biped. This was exciting
news and the "Illustrated London News" wanted an illustration of what Boule
thought the Neanderthal might like. Boule was more than happy to oblige and
under his direction Mr. Kupka of the London paper produced an image that
would stuck with the popular conscious for decades to come.

On 27th February, 1909 under the heading "An Ancestor: The Man of Twenty
Thousand Years Ago" Boule's illustration was published. The paper said "Our
drawing can fairly claim to be the first that has shown with any scientific
certainty prehistoric man in his habits as he lived". " It is not the artist's intention
to depict merely a type of prehistoric man, but the actual man whose skull was
found recently in the department of Correze .... Mr Kupka has covered the bones
with the muscles necessary to them - and has given the face the expression it
must have worn".

The illustration was a sensation the moment it was published. It more than
anything else brought home to the public the perception that scientists believed
that man had descended from apes or ape-like ancestors and that being the case

77
 it, being respected professionals they had to be right. For supporters of Darwin
and evolution movement, the illustration was a propaganda coup and they bled it
for all its worth. Before long more and more such pictures appeared in the
popular press and museums around the world fell over backwards to show
models of our ape-like Neanderthal ancestors.

Everywhere people could not get enough of what they had been told about the
origins of man and Darwin's growing band of proponents in the science
community were more than willing to present the evolutionist ape-man point of
view through whatever media was willing to present it. Needless to say, as the
evolution scenario became common knowledge and backed by more and more
reputable scientists, it would only be a matter of time before everyone believed
the hype. The ape-man had cometh.

HEIDELBERG MAN

In 1907 Dr Otto Schoetensack (1850 - 1912) of the University of Heidelberg

was staying at the Hochschwender Inn in Mauer, in Germany. For a number or
years he had been excavating a gravel and sand pit where types of animals that
had never been noted in southern Germany: sabre toothed tigers, lions,
elephants, hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses among them had been found. Then it
happened. Gravel worker Daniel Hartmann came knocking at the door shouting,
"Today I found Adam!".

The excited Schoetensack was led to the foot of a gravel pit wall some twenty
metres high and was shown a human mandible, just a jawbone with teeth and
nothing more. But to Schoetensack the find was like manna from heaven. The
following year (1908) he published a precise scientific description of his find in
which he stated that had a mandible without teeth been discovered, it would not
have been possible to recognise it as human: "the absolutely certain proof that we
are dealing with a human part lies solely in the nature of the denture", he said.

78
 Dr. Schoetensack called his ape-man to which he believed the jawbone
belonged "Homo heidelbergensis," better known as Heidelberg Man. However,
there were two unusual things about the jawbone that stood out. It had a very
wide and primitive rear bone and lacked a pointed chin. From this Schoetensack
concluded that the primitive bone revealed that the whole face must have been
primitive and therefore older than Neanderthal Man. Furthermore, The jawbone
was considerably larger that those found in modern humans and so it was
believed that he was a giant in comparison.

It is difficult to see how Schoetensack could say that the jawbone was older
than Neanderthal Man. He argued that the Mauer fauna was much older than
that known from the late Pleistocene such as those found with Neanderthal and
Cro-Magnon fossils, but he probably said this because of his belief that the
jawbone belonged to a primitive individual and therefore being primitive it had
to be old. As a consequence, some anthropologists believed that Schoetensack
had found a missing link between Java Man and Neanderthal Man. In fact in the
1924 book Men of the Old Stone Age by Henry Fairfield Osborn, a diagram of an
evolutionary tree is illustrated and we find that Heidelberg Man precedes
Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon and finally Homo Sapiens.
Already, an evolutionary tree was taking shape that would become a familiar icon
in years to come.

Incredibly, from this jawbone an ape-man was morphed into being perfectly
fully formed. In his famous book A Short History of the World H.G. Wells (1866-
1946) published a plaster sculpture of Heidelberg Man that had been modelled
under the supervision of Professor Rutot in 1922. With the picture of the
sculpture Wells wrote with his usual poetic license, "This jaw-bone is, I think, one
of the most tormenting objects in the world to our human curiosity. To see it is
like looking through a defective glass into the past and catching just one blurred
and tantalising glimpse of this Thing, shambling through the bleak wilderness,
clambering to avoid the sabre-toothed tiger, watching the woolly rhinoceros in
the woods. Then before we can scrutinise the monster, he vanishes. Yet the soil is
littered abundantly with the indestructible implements he chipped out for his
uses." [6]

79
 Not to be outdone by the Germans and with so much interest in Heidelberg
Man that had somehow grown from a jawbone the stage was set for British
scientists to make a name for themselves with the discovery of "Piltdown Man".

80
PILTDOWN MAN

By the beginning of the twentieth century, scientists in Europe had been

obsessed by the Darwinian theory on the origins of humanity for 50 years.
However humanoid fossil finds had been few and far between and only as fossil
fragments. An assortment of bones from Germany, Belgium and France had
confirmed the existence of a Neanderthal race and of course there was the
enigmatic Java discoveries. A lower jaw had been found in a sand pit near
Heidelberg in 1907 which also suggested that from this humanoid modern man
had evolved. However, in Britain nothing comparable had been found and some
anthropologists looked on with envious eyes.

The search for fossil man in Britain had not been for the want of trying. While
it was true that some fossils had been sought in the caves and gravels of England,
Ireland, Scotland and Wales and that some remains had been found, their
antiquity had been questionable and their aspect distinctly modern. The English,
justifiably proud of their cultural heritage and British Naturalist Darwin and his
ground breaking book on evolution, found themselves having to accept that there
was no evidence of archaic humans evolving in England. Then suddenly in 1912,
news began to emerge of an incredible find and everything changed. A total of
five human skull fragments had been found together with a jawbone and a few
teeth. The teeth appeared to have been worn down in a typically human manner
and looked very like those belonging to the Heidelberg jaw that was thought to be
500,000 years old.

The discovery had been made by a Sussex solicitor and amateur antiquarian,
Charles Dawson (1864 - 1916). He was a lawyer by profession and in that capacity

81
 in 1908 he was steward of several manors, among them the Barkham farm in
Piltdown. He was well known as an antiquarian and amateur geologist and for
many years he had been an Honorary Collector for the British Museum of
Natural History. While on the estate Dawson learned of a gravel pit on the north-
western side of the Barkham Manor drive. This he visited and while there he
asked the labourers who occasionally worked there to keep any fossils they might
encounter during their excavations.

One day on a subsequent visit, the labourers presented Dawson with a small,
concave, tabular object. It was part of a coconut shell, the men said, which they
had found and broken in the course of their digging. They, had kept one piece for
Dawson and discarded the rest. Dawson, however, realised that the object may
have been part of a fossil human skull. Thereafter he visited the site frequently
and some years later in the autumn of 1911 he found another fragment of the
same skull among the spoil heaps as well an ape-like jaw and crudely worked
flints. He also found animal pit-pieces - a hippopotamus left lower molar and an
elephant molar.

Believing the skull and jaw pieces might match the proportions of the
Heidelberg jaw Dawson wrote a letter (14th February, 1912) to his friend Dr
Arthur Smith Woodward (1864 - 1944), the Keeper of Geology at the Natural
History Museum and the world expert on fossil fish. In the letter Dawson
'dangled a carrot', "I have come across a very old Pleistocene bed overlying the
Hastings Bed between Uckfield and Crowborough which I think is going to be
interesting. It has a lot of iron-stained flints in it, so I suppose it is the oldest
known flint gravel in the Weald. I think portion of a human skull which will rival
H. Heidelbergensis in solidity."

The phrasing in the letter appeared somewhat garbled, but in essence Dawson
appeared to be saying that he had found part of early human skull contained in
situ within an ancient deposit of gravel. Woodward was understandably intrigued
by what Dawson had written. However, the two were unable to meet for at least
three months as Dawson was very busy at the office carrying out duties at the
manor - or so he said, and the weather had not been good.

In May Dawson wrote that he was coming up to London with his finds. When
he did Woodward was astonished by what Dawson showed him. What Woodward
saw was a skull that matched his own expectations and those of many others
concerning what a human ancestor should look like. The skull, stained a dark
brown from apparent age, seemed to be quite modern in many of its
characteristics. The thickness of the bones of the skull, however, argued for a
certain primitiveness. The association of the skull fragments with the bones of
extinct animals implied that an ancient human ancestor indeed had inhabited
England. By itself this was enormous news; at long last, England had a human
fossil.

Was there more human fossil remains to be found? Woodward and Dawson
decided to work together and work commenced in the gravel pit almost

82
 immediately in the hope of retrieving more remains. Fieldwork at Barkham
Manor, Piltdown continued sporadically throughout June, July and August of
1912. There were some new finds. Dawson's summary account for the pages of
the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society notes the discovery of
unspecified numbers of human cranial fragments from the spoil heaps, the right
half of a human mandible and a small portion of the occipital bone (a saucer-
shaped membrane bone that forms the back of the skull). Teeth of elephant,
mastodon, beaver, horse and hippopotamus, as well as a red deer antler, a deer
metatarsal were also found and apart from the bone assemblages, a number of
worked flints had also been retrieved.

Woodward reconstructed the fossil pieces and they seemed to be able to make
the jaw and head parts fit together perfectly. The stunning fact was that this
individual had a chimp-like jaw but a large brain, and used tools. What this
suggested to those who analysed the material, was that humans had evolved first
by adapting a large brain and intelligence, and this was followed by humanising
the lower, less important body structures.

The time had come to announce to the world of what they had found. So it was
that Woodwood and Dawson presented their finds to a meeting of the Geological
Society amid the Palladian splendour of Burlington House, London on 18th
December 1912.

The setting was grand and expectations were great among the elite of the
British scientific establishment. Dawson rose to his feet, twirled his handlebar
moustache and began to speak. He now had centre-stage. He told his rapt
audience of the humanoid skull fragments unearthed by workmen digging up
gravel at Piltdown, East Sussex - followed years later by the discovery of a
protruding, ape-like jaw bone in the same spot. The two matched and fitted and
Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, the eminent Keeper of Geology at the Natural
History Museum, now stood alongside Dawson to further explain the evidence of
a large-brained but monkey-shaped species that existed on Earth as many as a

83
 million years ago.

The news of the discovery was sensational, the excitement was intense and the
earliest known human was British! Some of the world's greatest scientists agreed
that the discovery was probably "of equal, if not of greater consequence" than any
fossils yet discovered here or abroad.

The creature was named Eoanthropus ('Dawn Man') dawsoni in Dawson's

honour, although it became more commonly known as Piltdown Man. The
remains were exactly what many leading British evolutionist palaeontologists had
been looking for, a creature combining ape-like and modern human
characteristics.

Dawson became an immediate celebrity and Piltdown Man was hailed by the
world's press as the most sensational archaeological find ever: the 'missing link'
that conclusively proved Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The Manchester
Guardian ran the first headline: "THE EARLIEST MAN?: REMARKABLE
DISCOVERY IN SUSSEX. A SKULL MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD" it
screamed, adding that the find was "the most important of our time". [8] The
New York Times of 22nd December 1912 ran the headline, "DARWIN
THEORY IS PROVED TRUE." The subtitle declared, "English Scientists say
the skull found in Sussex establishes human descent from apes".

Dawson had little time to enjoy his new celebrity status. He died four years
later probably with a smile on his face as his coffin was laid to rest beneath the
earth. Forty years later his name would be plastered in the news all around the
world again and this time he would be even more famous than before, but for the
wrong reasons. He was a fraud.

For more than four decades after the discovery of Piltdown Man many

84
 scientific articles were written and there have been many interpretations and
drawings made of this important creature, most showing him to be an ape-man.
No fewer than five hundred doctoral theses were written on the subject. [9]
Evolution had been proven true. Here was the long searched for proof of the
missing link between man and ape and the British newspapers had a field day.

There were some who doubted the authenticity of what was presented but even
these critics were silenced when in 1914 came news of the sensational discovery
that would rival anything that had been found before: a worked artifact made
from elephant bone had been found. This object appeared to demonstrate that
Piltdown Man had created tools for himself and had therefore he had been a
thinking, rational being.

By 1915, in less than a year, Piltdown Man could be found described in three
popular books, each one placing Piltdown Man centre stage. These were The
Antiquity of Man by Arthur Keith, Ancient Hunters by William Sollas and
Diversions of a Naturalist by Ray Lankester. 1915 was also the year that an oil
painting by John Cooke depicting the "main protagonists" of the Piltdown
discovery and subsequent debate with the title "A Discussion of the Piltdown
Skull", was unveiled at the Royal Academy in London.

A plaster reconstruction was given a prominent place in the British Museum of

Natural History, where it sat for the next forty-one years, providing evidence to
countless visitors of the truth of human evolution. "Needless to say, objections to
man's ape ancestry made in the pulpit were effectively silenced. A whole
generation grew up with Piltdown man in their textbooks and home
encyclopaedias; who in their right mind would question the veracity of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica?" (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 224).

85
 Piltdown played a significant role in "proving" Darwinian evolution in England
during the first half of the twentieth century, and its discoverers were rewarded
generously. Arthur Keith, Arthur Woodward, and Grafton Elliot Smith were
knighted by the Queen. Woodward, who said that Piltdown was "the most
important thing that ever happened in my life," was awarded the Royal Society's
Gold Medal, the Lyell Medal, the Linnean Medal, the Wollaston Prize, the French
Academy's Prix Cuvier, and the American Museum's Thompson Medal.

Piltdown Man was extensively promoted as proof that Darwin's theory had
been correct and man had evolved along the lines that he and other Darwinians
had suggested. And if you still needed convincing along came Rhodesian Man
just to hammer home the truth about Darwin's evolution theory.

RHODESIAN MAN

In 1921 Tom Zwiglaar, a Swiss miner while mining in an iron and zinc cave at
Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in the nation of Zambia) came
across an adult cranium, the part of the skull that encloses the brain. The skull
had a very strange, almost symmetrical hole in the left side of the head This were
attributed to a process called trephining, the practice by which a hole would be
carved in the skull of a living person. This is done as part of a ritual that they
believe releases evil spirits.

News of the discovery of Rhodesian Man was published in many papers

around the world including The London Chronicle, 21st November 1921. The
headline was: "CAVE MAN'S SKULL AT BRITISH MUSEUM. BELIEVED
TO BE 100,000 YEARS OLD - APE-LIKE HUMAN". The British Museum
geologists were Arthur Smith Woodward, famous for his work with Piltdown Man
and W. J. Pycraft. Upon examining the skull, Woodward wrote an article in
Nature magazine which was published 17th November, 1921. Under the heading
"A NEW CAVE MAN FROM RHODESIA, SOUTH AFRICA" Woodward
declared that another "missing link" had been found.

86
 When Arthur Smith Woodward of the Piltdown affair began to arrange for
reconstruction of the fossil bones at the British Museum, his preconception with
missing links was that this ancient looking skull belonged to a creature that
walked with an ape-like stoop. W.J. Pycraft did the actual reconstruction, and
with this preconception before him, he reassembled the pelvic girdle, which had
been found in fragments, and finished up with what they were pleased to call
Cyphanthropus or Stooping man.

Neither Woodward nor Pycraft were anatomists and fortunately the mistake
that they had made in their reconstruction was spotted by a competent anatomist
who challenged their work. As a result of this challenge, the reconstruction errors
were corrected forcing the museum in 1928 to recognise Rhodesian Man as
having an erect posture. Because of the location of the bones, Cyphanthropus
became known to the world as Rhodesian Man.

The consensus from other scientists was that the skull belonged evidently to an
extremely robust individual, who had the comparatively largest brow-ridges of
any known hominid remains. The capacity of the skull was found to be between
1,280 and 1,325 cubic centimetres, which is slightly less than the modern average
man, while from the muscle attachment areas it was evident that the individual
was very powerfully built. Rhodesian Man was described as having a broad face
similar to Neanderthal Man (ie. large nose and thick protruding brow ridges),
and was thought to be an "African Neanderthal". HG Wells said as much when he
described the find in his book Outline of History published in 1922.

"We do not know where the True Men first originated. But in the
summer of 1921, an extremely interesting skull was found together with
pieces of a skeleton at Broken Hill in South Africa, which seems to be a
relic of a third sort of man, intermediate in its characteristics between
the Neanderthaler and the human being. The brain-case indicates a
brain bigger in front and smaller behind than the Neanderthaler's, and
the skull was poised erect upon the backbone in a quite human way.
The teeth also and the bones are quite human. But the face must have
been ape-like with enormous brow ridges and a ridge along the middle
of the skull. The creature was indeed a true man, so to speak, with an
ape-like, Neanderthaler face. This Rhodesian Man is evidently still
closer to real men than the Neanderthal Man. "

The book The Outline of Science - A Plain Story Simply Told by J. Thompson,
who was Regius Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen, said
very much the same. In the book he wrote:

"Very striking are the prominent eyebrow ridges and the broad massive
face. The skull looks less domed than that of modern man, but its
cranial capacity is far above the lowest human limit. The teeth are
interesting in showing marked rotting or "caries," hitherto unknown in
prehistoric skulls. In all probability the Rhodesian man was an African

87
 representative of the extinct Neanderthal species hitherto known only
from Europe."

Accompanying the description was a picture by illustrator A Forestier who

worked for the Illustrated London News.

There could be no argument now. Darwin had been right! It would seem that
evidence for the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors was being found all
over the world with striking regularity. So when another find was reported
coming from the USA, it almost seemed tiresome. It was all becoming just too
familiar.

NEBRASKA MAN

88
 Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) was an American geologist, paleontologist,
and eugenicist, and the president of the American Museum of Natural History, a
position he held for twenty-five years. Despite his considerable scientific stature
during the 1900s and 1910s, Osborn's scientific achievements had not held up
well, for they were undermined by ongoing efforts to bend scientific findings to
fit his own racist and eugenicist viewpoints. In this regard, he took an active
interest in Piltdown Man as I shall shortly relate.

While visiting the British Museum in 1921, Osborn had the opportunity to see
the fossils of Piltdown Man and he was moved to say that "We have to be
reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes" and proclaimed
Piltdown "a discovery of transcendent importance to the prehistory of man." [10]

Osborn though an ardent supporter of evolution was a critic of Darwinism and

instead developed his own theory of man's origins which he called the "Dawn
Man Theory". His theory was founded on what he saw in Piltdown Man which
was said to be dated to the Late (Upper) Pliocene. Osborn as a racist could not
bring himself to accept that man's ancestors was that of an ape. So instead he
argued that all apes had evolved entirely parallel to the ancestors of man.

A year after viewing Piltdown Man he made the announcement of a discovery

that stunned the world. He had found a tooth! The tooth had been passed to him
by Harold Cook, a rancher and occasional paleontologist. Cook had found the
small well-worn tooth in 1917 in the sedimentary layers in the north-western part
of the State of Nebraska thought at the time to have been laid down during the
Pliocene period. On the 14th of March 1922, some five years after Cook found the
tooth, he submitted it to Osborn for identification. Within a month of receipt,
Osborn had declared that this tooth looked 100% anthropoid, and announced it
to the greater American public as the first American anthropoid ape, giving it the
impressive name Hesperopithecus haroldcookii.

The Illustrated London News of June 22, 1922 wrote about the find under the
heading, "THE EARLIEST MAN TRACKED BY A TOOTH: AN

89
 "OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY" OF HUMAN REMAINS IN
PLIOCENE STRATA" The creature was called Hesperopithecus (the ape-man
of the western world) but he is better know as Nebraska Man. The paper's artist
Amédée Forestier, produced a drawing which he modelled on the proportions of
"Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man".

Upon receipt, Osborn quickly made a number of casts of the Nebraska man-
tooth, sending copies to twenty-six institutions in Europe and America. In Britain
the response was mixed, with some paleontologists expressing scepticism while
others were very enthusiastic about the new find. Grafton Elliot Smith (1871 -
1937) Professor of Anatomy at the University of London was very keen on the
discovery and claimed in an article in The Illustrated London News, that
Hesperopithecus was the third discovery of a genus of extinct hominids, standing
alongside Eoanthropus and Pithecanthropus. The journal continued by saying:

"Osborn's announcement of the discovery, in the Pliocene beds of

Nebraska, of a fossil tooth, which he and his distinguished colleagues
in the American Museum of Natural History are unanimous in
regarding as evidence of the former existence in America of a higher
representative of the Order Primates, either a new genus of anthropoid
apes of of an extremely primitive member of the human family, is an
event of momentous importance to every student of the history of the
human family" [11]

90
 One person who was more circumspect about the Nebraska find was Arthur
Smith Woodward. Probably wishing to preserve the pre-eminence of his own
work at Piltdown, he showed some scepticism towards the Nebraska tooth,
stating that such a find seemed unlikely and wanted to see more conclusive
evidence. Regardless of what Woodward and others said, America felt proud to
be able to show that man had also evolved in their country.

AUSTALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS

At about the same time that news about the discovery of Piltdown Man was
making the headlines the fossilised skull of a child, half-ape, half-human, found
its way without warning into the hands of a young anatomist in Johannesburg,
South Africa. His name was Raymond Dart (1893-1988) and Australian who had
moved to South Africa with his wife Dora to become head the anatomy
department at the University of Witwatersrand.

Dart wanted to establish an anatomical museum in his new department, and

his attention was drawn to fossilised baboon skulls that were being unearthed in
a lime mine at Taung in the northern Cape. In his book Adventures with the
Missing Link, Dart relates how two boxes of fossils from Taung were delivered
to his house one Saturday afternoon in 1924, just as he was dressing for a
wedding reception to be held there. Unable to contain his curiosity, he wrenched
open the boxes in the driveway. The first box did not seem to contain anything of
interest. But when he looked into the second, he later recalled:

"On the very top of the rock heap was what was undoubtedly an
endocranial cast or mold of the interior of the skull. Had it been only
the fossilised brain cast of any species of ape it would have ranked as a
great discovery, for such a thing had never before been reported. But I
knew at a glance that what lay in my hands was no ordinary
anthropoidal brain. Here in lime-consolidated sand was the replica of a

91
 brain three times as large as that of a baboon and considerably bigger
than that of an adult chimpanzee."

Dart spent the next three months chipping matrix away from the face with
sharpened knitting needles. When he finally removed the rock, he saw the face of
an ape-like child, the Taung Child as it became to be called. Without sending the
fossil off for independent verification by experts elsewhere the enthusiastic young
anatomist took upon himself to describe the fossil himself. Within weeks, Dart
submitted a manuscript to Nature Magazine, naming his new species:
Australopithecus africanus, which means Southern Ape. On 7th February 1925
the magazine published Dart's find under the heading
"AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS: THE MAN-APE OF SOUTH
AFRICA".

Dart's opinions published in Nature Magazine was largely scorned by the

scientists of this time (1924) who considered it nothing more than a young
chimpanzee (now considered to be about three years of age). The skull was soon
known derisively as "Dart's baby."

Due to the hostile or indifferent response of his peers, Dart never followed up
on the find with further excavations, and no other specimens of the species have
been found at Taung since. Disillusioned Dart concentrated his efforts by
developing the anatomy department at the University of Witwatersrand.
However, it would not be the last we would hear of Australopithecus
africanus as we shall learn later. Dart would one day have a place of honour in
the annals of evolutionary research.

Across the water from Alaska, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin looked on at the
ape-man fossil discoveries coming from Europe, Africa and America with
considerable interest ...

STALIN'S APEMAN ARMY

92
 Sometimes a psychopath attains a position of great political power. The result
is predictable - many innocent deaths, bloodshed and destruction on a massive
scale. Both atheists and religious (Christian, Moslem, Hindu etc) despots have
been guilty of this but it helps if in the former one is not held accountable to God,
and the other believing, brainwashed would be a better description of belief, that
what they do was sanctioned by God. In the case of Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) he
was just plain evil and although he was an atheist, it is doubtful if he would have
been any different had he been a Christian.

Stalin had not always been an atheist. At sixteen, he received a scholarship to a

Georgian Orthodox seminary, (Tiflis Theological Seminary) where he became
disenchanted by the imperialist and religious order that was taught there. He was
expelled at the age of 19, in 1898 for reading illegal literature and for forming a
Social Democratic group. One of his friends later said in a book, which was
published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power, that when Stalin began to
read Darwin this was when he became an atheist. As a result he developed a
rebellious nature one that grew worse and worse as time went. Discovering that
there was no God, he felt he could do whatever he pleased because he believed
that there was no accountability for his actions.

Shortly after leaving the seminary, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir
Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary, eventually joining Lenin's
Bolsheviks in 1903. Twenty years later he played an active part in the Russian
Revolution and in 1922 Lenin had Stalin appointed General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This post enabled Stalin to appoint many
of his allies to government positions so that when Lenin died in 1924 he was able
to seize power. He became like a god, having power over life and death and
nobody was safe from his grasp. Millions of people would die at his hands and
many more suffered the privations of the labour camps called gulags.

Although Stalin believed in evolution he did not follow Darwin's evolutionary

mechanism of Natural Selection. He preferred instead Lamarck's version of
evolution. Lamarck (1744 - 1829) argued that organisms arose in their simplest

93
 forms via spontaneous generation and that characteristics acquired by an
organism in its lifetime could be passed down to offspring, making environment
of equal importance to heredity. Stalin reading the news of the discovery of ape
men fossils being found in Europe and the United States, saw this as proof of
Lamark's vision of evolution.

It did not take long for Stalin's megalomaniac [12] demented mind to come up
with an idea that he thought might solve some problems he had. The Soviet
authorities were struggling to rebuild the Red Army after bruising wars and there
was intense pressure to find a new labour force, particularly one that would not
complain, with Russia about to embark on its first "Five Year Plan" for fast-track
industrialisation. Stalin was very aggressive with scientific research and did not
have many moral qualms about the use of science or anything else to serve his
ends. So when he heard about a proposal put forward by one of Russia's leading
animal breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov to the Academy of Sciences to cross an ape
and a human to produce viable offspring, Stalin saw an opportunity.

According to recently uncovered secret documents, [13] Ivanov was

summoned to a meeting with Stalin and presented his proposal to the Dictator.
Stalin listened to what Ivannov had to say in his usual solemn quiet way, waiting
for the moment to strike at his unsuspecting prey. Stalin knew that in 1910,
Ivannov had given a presentation at the World Congress of Zoologists in Graz,
Austria, on the possibility of creating a human-ape hybrid.

Ivannov confident with what he had in mind said to Stalin that if he crossed an
ape and a human and produced viable offspring then that would mean Darwin
was right about how closely related we are. Ivannov stressed how proving Darwin
right would strike a blow against religion, which the Bolsheviks were struggling
to stamp out. Success would not only bolster the reputation of Soviet science but
provide useful anti-religious propaganda to boot. What happened next took the
scientist by surprise. According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist:
"I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and
indifferent about the quality of food they eat." [14] Stalin said he wanted a super-
warrior ape human hybrid that he could use for labour and as shock troops for
the army.

94
 Ivanov knowing full well of Stalin's reputation for brutality towards anyone
who disagreed with him, could do little else but go along with what Stalin wanted.
This was 1925 not long after news of the finding of Piltdown man with that
creature's ape-like (chimpanzee jaw) and modern human characteristics. It
should be no surprise therefore to learn that Ivannov's plan was to impregnate
female chimpanzees with human male sperm to see if he could produce a human
ape-man hybrids just like Britain's famous ape-man. Stalin approved funding for
the experiment to the tune of $10,000 (worth about $120,000 today) and Ivanov
came away from the meeting knowing that his life lay in the balance should he
not produce the results that Stalin wanted.

According to modern scientists, Ivanov's ideas were not without some merit.
Some other primate species are able to interbreed and humans and chimpanzees
have DNA that is almost 99% identical. Humans and Chimpanzees are believed
to have evolved from the same evolutionary branch of the primate family and of
all primates, chimpanzees would be the most likely candidate for a hybridisation
program.

If such an ape-man hybrid (human and chimpanzee) was created could they be
super warriors? According to Esteban Sarmiento of the New York Natural
History Museum, chimpanzees are like human in that they will organize in order
to fight each other. Bill Fields of the Great Ape Trust says that chimpanzees can
be very warlike and are five to ten times stronger than humans. University of
Florida animal psychologist Clive Wynne believes that while ape species are
much stronger than humans, they would be uncontrollable. [15]

In November, 1926 Ivanov, accompanied by his son also named Ilya, began his
experiments at the botanical gardens in Conakr, in Guinea, West Africa. He
artificially inseminated three female chimpanzees over the course of a year but

95
 his efforts proved futile. Desperate for success he changed his tactics and
instead wanted to inseminate Soviet women with ape sperm. That way he would
require the sperm of only one male ape donor.

The Ivanovs left Africa in July 1927 with thirteen apes, including the three
used in his experiments and returned to the Soviet Union, to Sukhumi, in
Georgia. There he began an effort to organise hybridisation experiments using
ape sperm and human females but it was not until the spring of 1929 and with
the support of the Society of Materialist Biologists, a group associated with the
Communist Academy, that Ivanov once again was able to begin his experiments.
He had planned to inseminate five volunteer women with the sperm of the only
ape that had survived, an orangutan called Tarzan but as luck would have it the
primate died. [16]

By the time Ivanov returned to Georgia the political situation in the Soviet
Union had changed. A series of repressive measures was taking place involving
the large-scale purge of the Communist Party and government officials,
repression of peasants, Red Army leadership, and unaffiliated persons in an
atmosphere of widespread surveillance and suspicion of "saboteurs". Hundreds
of thousands of victims were accused of various political crimes (espionage,
wrecking, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, conspiracies to prepare uprisings and
coups); they were quickly executed by shooting, or sent to the Gulag labour
camps. Many died at the penal labour camps from starvation, disease, exposure,
and overwork.

Scientists at the Society of Materialist Biologists involved in the planning of

the Sukhumi experiments suddenly found that they had lost their positions.
Without there support Ivanov waited for the hammer to fall on his head and he
did not have to wait long. With no success with his experiments and Stalin now
bored with the whole idea Ivanov came under political criticism at his veterinary
institute. Finally, on December 13, 1930, Ivanov was arrested. He was sentenced
to five years in exile to Alma Ata, the capital Kazakhstan. Here he worked for the
Kazakh Veterinary-Zoologist Institute, his experiments abandoned. Two years
into his exile he died from a stroke on 20 March 1932.

It is true that Stalin's super army of ape-men did not materialise but what was
quite apparent was how strong it was believed that man had evolved from apes,
even in Soviet Russia. Then new evidence in China emerged that would boulster
this theory even more.

PEKING MAN

96
 In 1926, Johann Gunnar Andersson (1874 - 1960), a famous Swedish geologist
and archaeologist and Otto Zdansky (1894 - 1988), an Austrian paleontologist,
made a survey at Zhoukoudian, near Peking in China having earlier been told
that there were some dragon bones, a term the Chinese use to refer to ancient
fossils, to be found there. After a brief period of excavation the men found a
fossilised pig jaw and the next day a richer array of fossils including rhinoceros
teeth and the jawbones of hyenas and bears. It was not long before their fossil
collection grew to an impressive size, representing a variety of extinct species of
mammals thought to be millions of years old.

Anderson sent the fossils to Carl Wiman (1867 - 1944) of the Museum of
Uppsala in Sweden. It took Wiman several years for him to inspect the enormous
quantity of specimens, but it proved well worth the effort. In October 1926, he
sent Andersson a letter claiming that he came across two teeth, a molar and
premolar in the collection that were of particular interest. He suggested that the
teeth were hominid or manlike and were therefore of significant importance.

Wiman returned the two teeth to Andersson and Zdansky who gave them to
Dr. Davidson Black (1884 - 1934), a Canadian anthropologist who was head of
the Peking Union Medical Colleges department of anatomy for examination.
Black not only confirmed Wimans view, but thought they belonged to a new
human species whom he called Sinanthropus pekinensis meaning, "Chinese man
from Peking", later dubbed "Peking Man".

Reporting to his superiors, Black claimed that the teeth appeared to be

approximately 2 million years old and if his conclusions were correct, they would
represent the oldest known evidence of man's existence. Black designed a special
locket for one of the teeth and carried it with him around his neck. Several
months later he took it to America and had the tooth examined by a variety of
experts to validate the date and origin. He also presented it to the Rockefeller

97
 Foundation, which was the organisation funding his work in China.

In the spring of 1928 Black returned to Peking with a grant from the
Rockefeller Foundation under his belt. Immediately he launched a large scale
excavation at the site around Zhoukoudia recruiting two new Chinese scientists,
Pei Wenzhong (Anglicised as W.C. Pei) and Dr. Yang Zhongjian (Anglicised as
C.C. Young). For months the scientists and many manual workers laboured in the
clay and limestone without finding any more human remains, not even one. By
November things looked dire with only bone fragments of extinct animals being
found. The Rockefeller funds were running out and the dig was due to be closed,
perhaps for good. Then amazingly, just days before the dig was due to be closed a
significant find was made. A portion of a lower jaw, several teeth and a number of
skull fragments were found.

The timing could not have been better because the Rockefeller Foundation
wanted more evidence before they would provide any more funding. Now Black
had the evidence. Once again Black returned to the United States and presented
the artifacts to the Rockefeller Foundation hoping to receive more funding, which
he did - a much larger grant that before to the sum of $80,000. With the new
funding excavations could be continued at the site and Black was able to use
some of the money to found "The Cenozoic Research Laboratory", a special
division of the Chinese Geological Survey.

News of the discovery of Peking Man leaked out and once again the world
opened their newspapers to read the news that another ape-man had been
discovered, this time in China, providing further proof for the evolution of man.
The New York Times for example declared under the headline "PEKING MAN
RANKED AS OLDEST HUMAN: Scientists Call Fossil Nearest
Approach to Missing Link Yet Discovered". The newspaper reported that,
"The now famous "Peking man" who is presumed to have lived about 1,000,000
years ago, has been definitely ranked by scientists of international fame as
undoubtedly the nearest approach to the "missing link" that has yet been
found." [17] Newspapers all over the world made similar announcements.

So far only a lower jaw, several teeth and a number of skull fragments had
been found. However, as excavations began again expectations were high. Within
a year an even more remarkable discovery was made. It was 2nd December 1929,
when Pei Wenzhong, the newly appointed general director of the site showed
Black an uncrushed human skullcap half embedded in rock and sand. The two
men worked vigorously into the night to free the delicate skull fragment. Once it
was released Black examined it and confirmed that it was from the Pleistocene
period, the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years
ago. The deposits contained the bones of extinct Pleistocene animals.

Beyond the finding of a few skull caps, a jaw bone and a few teeth, no other
skeletal remains were uncovered. Even so, it was believed that Peking Man have
been small in stature ranging between 4 feet, 8 inches and 5 feet, 1 inch tall. The
finds indicated that Peking Man also had a jutting brow, a collapsed chin and a

98
 broad nose. It was also believed that he walked upright and believe to have
weighed approximately one hundred pounds. The thick skull bone and beetling
brow housed, it was thought, a brain three-quarters the size of modern man, too
big for an ape.

In 1934, Davidson Black died suddenly after his preliminary publications had
appeared, and his place was taken by Franz Weidenreich (1873 - 1948). He was a
Jewish German anatomist and physical anthropologist who studied evolution.
Weidenreich had begun to produce his definitive authoritative account of Peking
Man but because of the Japanese invasion of China he was forced to flee to
America leaving the original fossils behind in Beijing. However, he had taken
with him photographs, notes, measurements, and a well-made series of casts
from which he was able to finish his monograph.

As a trained anatomist and medical doctor, Weidenreich concluded that some

of the skulls showed signs of trauma, including scars and fresh injuries from
attacks with both blunt and sharp instruments, such as clubs and stone tools.
Most convincing to him and others was the systematic destruction of the skulls,
apparently at the hands of humans who had decapitated the victims and then
broken open the skull bases to retrieve the brains. Weidenreich also believed that
the large longitudinal splits seen, for example, in some of the thigh bones could
only have been caused by humans and were probably made in an effort to extract
the marrow. This suggested evidence of cannibalism. At first this cannibalism
hypothesis received considerable support in scientific circles.

Arrangements were made for the original fossils to be sent to the USA.
However, as fate would have it the day they reached the Chinese port of
embarkation it was 7th December, 1941 - the day bombs fell on Pearl Harbour
and war declared between the empire of Japan the USA.

Eyewitness accounts suggest that the crates containing the fossils had been
placed on a U.S. Marine vehicle for removal to the Marine Barracks in Peking, for
eventual safe transport to the United States. It was apparently intended that the
crates be transported to the US aboard the transport ship the President Harrison,
from the port of Qinhaungdao, near the Marine base of Camp Holcomb.
Apparently the fossils were to travel from the Marine barracks in Peking, via rail
to the port, where they would be placed upon the cargo ship. But the SS President
Harrison encountered Japanese warships as war broke out and ran aground,
never to reach Qinhaungdao.

The exact disposition of the crates containing the fossils has never been
established, so that from their exit through the gates of the Peking Union Medical
College, the last reliable sighting, they simply vanished never to be seen again.
Despite one of the most intensive searches in the history of archaeological
science, including substantial rewards being offered, no verifiable sign of the
whereabouts of these important historical objects have emerged. It was as if they
had disappeared into thin air.

99
 It is indeed fortunate that the plaster casts that Weidenreich had created were
so good, that before long replicas could be found in many museums around the
word. With the detailed monograph written by Weidenreich Peking Man became
firmly established as part the evolutionary evidence for the descent of man from
apes, and proof that Darwin had been right. However, a growing number of
anthropologists doubted that the ape-like ancestors of man had originated in the
Far East and attention became focused upon Africa and that is where we shall be
going next in this evolutionary saga.

100
 Chapter 5
OUT OF AFRICA

"In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the
extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was
formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee;
and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more
probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than
elsewhere."
(Charles Darwin, "Descent of Man")

The reader may recall in the previous chapter that the search for the human
ancestors of man had begun in Asia because the German Zoologist Haeckel
suggested that the origin of humanity was to be found there. Circumstances
enabled Eugène Dubois, a Dutch national with an interest in evolution, to travel
to Java as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in Indonesia. This enabled him
to carry out some excavations in his spare time which resulted in the discovery of
Java Man. Later similar bone fragments were found in China by Raymond Black,
which became known as Peking Man, although these were later lost during the
Second World War.

HOMO ERECTUS

101
 In the 1950's and 60's as the search for human ancestors continued at a fast
pace it was decided to reclassify Java Man and Peking Man under the taxon
Homo Erectus, which means "upright man", and since they were found in Asia, it
was thought by many early scientists that man had evolved from that part of the
world. The remains did seem to confirm what Haeckel had claimed but others
remembered what Darwin had said in his book Descent of Man (1871). Darwin
had suggested that Africa, where chimpanzees and gorillas lived, would be the
most probable region of human origins and a number of anthropologists felt the
same. One such person was Louis Leakey who living in Kenya and he wanted to
prove Darwin's hypothesis that the evolution of humans had evolved out in
Africa.

LOUIS LEAKEY

Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey (L.S.B. Leakey) (1903-1972) was a British

archaeologist and naturalist who unswervingly accepted Darwin's theory of
evolution. Louis' parents, Harry and Mary Bazett Leakey (called May by her
friends), were British missionaries of the Christian faith in then British East
Africa, now Kenya so for much of his childhood Louis grew up playing with
Kikuyu children. The Kikuyu is the largest ethnic group in Kenya, and speak the
Bantu Kikuyu language as a mother tongue. Louis learned to speak their
language as fluently as he spoke English and he learned to hunt. At the age of
thirteen he was initiated into the tribe. Thus, although the family made
occasional visits to England, young Louis grew up identifying more as an African
than as an Englishman.

When he was thirteen Louis had discovered some stone tools. The resulting
interest in prehistory eventually led to his entering Cambridge University in
1922, intent on learning more. But he was injured in rugby and was forced to
postpone his studies. So he returned for a time to Africa, taking up the
management of a paleontological expedition. But he returned to Cambridge in
1925, resumed his formal studies, and by 1926 had graduated with degrees in
both archaeology and anthropology. On graduation Louis was such a respected

102
 figure that the university sent him to East Africa to study prehistoric African
humans. He excavated dozens of sites, undertaking for the first time a systematic
study of the artifacts.

In 1927 Louis met and married Henrietta Wilfreda "Frida" Avern and for a
time they worked together in Africa near Lake Elmenteitah. Louis was given the
PhD in 1930 at the age 27. His first child, a daughter, Priscilla Muthoni Leakey,
was born in 1931 but the marriage was not to last for much longer. Louis was at a
dinner party given in his honour after a lecture of his at the Royal
Anthropological Institute, when he was introduced to an illustrator, the twenty-
year-old Mary Nicol. Louis convinced Mary to take on the illustration of his book.
A few months later companionship turned to romance. Mary became pregnant
and Colin Leakey was born in December, 1933. In January, 1934, Louis asked
Frida for a divorce.

OLDOWAY MAN
During the personal family upheavals Louis had become interested in the area
of the Olduvai Gorge a steep-sided ravine in the Great Rift Valley that stretches
through eastern Africa. It lies in the eastern Serengeti Plains in northern
Tanzania. Professor Hans Reck (1886 - 1937), a German national, whom Louis
had met in 1925 in Germany had found an anatomically modern human skeleton
at the Gorge in what was then German East Africa and is now Tanzania. The
skeletal remains included a complete skull. Reck had thought that the skeleton
was very ancient and it was named Oldoway Man, named after the Oldoway beds
where it was found.

Doubts about its age however failed to gain Oldoway Man any recognition
other than casual interest. One of the people who took an interest was Louis who
in 1927 visited Munich to examine the Oldoway Man, and he returned again in
1929 for a further study. In 1932 in Nature Magazine (14 May 1932) Louis came
out in support of his friend Reck by declaring that the human skeleton had been
an ancient burial. [1] However, Louis went against the common consensus that
the skeleton was of recent origin, perhaps 20,000 year old. Arthur Tindell
Hopwood (1897-1969) Curator of Fossil Mammals at the British Museum of
Natural History at the time was among many who voiced their concerns.

"Professor Reck (1914) claimed that this skeleton was the same
Middle Pliestocene age as the numerous other fossils found in Beds I-
IV, and, indeed, that it was actually deposited with them in Bed II. This
opinion was not accepted. Some authors maintained that it was an
intrusive burial of much later date, whilst various theories were put
forward by others (cf Leakey 1931, p15)" [2]

At an early stage in the pioneering work at Olduvai Gorge Hopwood had

worked on the fossil mammal fauna with Louis Leakey's team. He visited the
sites and wrote a good deal, so his criticism of Louis was based upon personal

103
 observation.

Undaunted by his disagreement with his fellow scientists over Oldoway Man,
Louis was sure that Olduvai Gorge held the answers to the origins of man in
Africa. More determined than ever he and Mary made regular pilgrimages to the
site and nearby parts of Tanzania to collect fossils, stone tools and to make
observations of local wildlife and geology.

PLESIANTHROPUS TRANSVAALENIS

While the man and wife team of the Leakeys continued their search for ape-
like descendants at the Olduvai Gorge, another man was also in Africa. His name
was Robert Broom (1866 - 1951), a Scottish South African doctor and
paleontologist. In 1896, when he was thirty, he heard that fossilised remains of
mammal like animals had been discovered in the Cape, so he resettled in South
Africa and began his search for the missing links (transitional forms) between
reptiles and mammals. He was encouraged by Henry Osborn, the American
anthropologist who had discovered Nebraska Man. [4]

After Raymond Dart's discovery of the Taung Child Broom's interest in

palaeontology had been heightened. Giving up his medical practice and wanting
to devote more time to his beloved fossils in 1936 he took up an appointment as
Professor of Geology and Zoology at Victoria College of Stellenbosch. He was 70
years of age.

In 1937 Broom and John Talbot Robinson (1923 - 2001), a distinguished South
African hominid paleontologist, worked together in the Sterkfontein area during
which time using dynamite he blasted a hominid skull from its skullcap, and then
pieced together what he described as Plesianthropus transvaalensis. As the name
was long, and he said it was a female, the journalists of the time soon shortened
the name to "Mrs. Ples" a name which has stuck ever since. The skull and teeth
resembled Dart's Australopithecus africanus find and eventually in later years
scientists agreed that "Mrs. Ples" belonged to the species Australopithecus

104
 africanus, and it proved that Dart had been correct about his Taung Skull, and
the genus Australopithecus africanus soon became the scientific name applied to
all ape-like ancestors of man found in Africa.

PARANTHROPUS ROBUSTUS
Broom had made a habit of buying fossil remains from a lime quarry worker,
and on a particular visit on June 8, 1938, Broom bought a maxillary fragment
containing a first molar. The shape and the size of the molar convinced Broom
that this was a different species than that of his previous find and upon further
investigation, found that the specimen had been found by a young boy who
worked in the cave as a guide on Sundays. Broom searched for the boy (Gert
Terblanche) and found him at school. After school Gert led Broom to the place of
the specimen's discovery, Kromdraai. Here Broom found several more cranial
and mandibular fragments associated with the original maxillary specimen which
he called Paranthropus robustus on account that the cranial features seemed to
be aimed in the direction of a "heavy-chewing complex". Later Paranthropus
robustus was renamed Australopithecus robustus and was said to have lived
between 2.0 and 1.2 million years ago.

Broom spent some time working on a monograph on the australopithecines

(southern apes), which was published in 1946. This monograph included the
description of TM 1517 the catalog name for his Paranthropus robustus, and was
a turning point for the South African australopithecines in the eyes of the world.
The monograph received the U.S. National Academy of Sciences award for the
most important book of the year in biology, and was very important in altering
the view that the South African specimens were human ancestors and not simply
extinct apes.

PROCONSUL AFRICANUS

It is said that behind a great man there is a woman and for Louis Leakey that
woman was Mary. It can be argued that if it was not for her, Louis would not have
risen to heights of fame that he eventually did. This had fact had not gone
unnoticed. When Mary died in 1996, the newspaper London Times said of her:

"MARY LEAKEY was the scientific anchor without which her husband,
the anthropologist Louis Leakey, might have been dismissed as a mere
controversialist with an exotic private life. For every vivid claim made
by Louis about the origins of man, the supporting evidence tended to
come from Mary, whose scrupulous scientific approach contrasted with
his taste for publicity and enjoyment of personal battles." [3]

After the Second World War, the Leakey's spent several years on Rusinga

105
 Island, just off the east coast of Lake Victoria. On the morning of October 6,
1948, Mary discovered some interesting bone fragments and a tooth buried in the
side of a cliff. During the next two days, she found enough pieces to reconstruct
the skull and jaws of an apelike creature from the Miocene era called Proconsul
africanus. However, the skull had been crushed and was therefore completely
distorted but it was enough to make an assessment. Louis said of it "Its canine
teeth suggest an ape's, while its forehead reminds us of our own. It seems to me,
however, to be neither an ancestral ape, nor yet an ancestor of man, but a side
branch with characteristics of both stocks...".

It was clear that what Mary had found was an early ape and not the missing
link that she had Louis had been hoping for. It would be was another decade
before they found what they had been searching for such a long time. In 1959
they found Zinjanthropus.

ZINJANTHROPUS
It was on the morning of 17th July 1959, when Mary was walking through
excavation site at the Olduvai Gorge with her Dalmatians (Louis was sick at camp
with the flu), when she caught sight of what looked like a hominid skull
protruding from the ground. On closer investigation, she saw that two teeth were
still intact in the upper jaw and that everything appeared in situ. Carefully, Mary
and her colleagues dug out a partial cranium on 6th August, though it had to be
reconstructed from its fragments which were scattered in the loose rock debris at
the base of a steep incline. [4]

106
 Once he had examined the cranium, Louis determined it to be an adolescent,
based on its dentition, and so he and Mary began to call it "Dear Boy". Louis also
believed that it was of a species ancestral to modern humans but a member of the
subfamily of the Australopithecines. In describing the fossilised hominid in his
journal, Louis initially considered the classification Titanohomo mirabilis
(wonderful Titan-like man), but he eventually dubbed their find Zinjanthropus
boisei (East Africa man). Zinj is an ancient Arabic word for the East African
coast; anthropus refers to the fossil's human like characteristics; and boisei refers
to Charles Boise, who had been making financial contributions to the Leakey's
work since 1948. This classification was eventually revised to Paranthropus boise.

Zinjanthropus was also given the name of "Nutcracker Man" because of his
huge teeth and he was declared as proof that ancestors of man had inhabited the
area. The find shifted the search for human evolution ancestors from Asia to
Africa. It would appear that the Leakeys had found an ape-like ancestor of man
that was dated to be 1.75 to 2 million years old. Mary said in her autobiography,
"two major discoveries marked turning points in my life, the finding of Proconsul
in 1948, and the finding of Zinj in 1959." [5]

CALICO MAN
The Calico "site" was first discovered by amateur archaeologist Ruth DeEtte
"Dee" Simpson. It was located on the eastern side of the Calico Mountains
northeast of Barstow, California, high on the steep slopes of gravel that come off
the mountains during floods. Here were found hundreds of rocks that bore a
strong resemblance to prehistoric tools have been found at the site, both on the
surface, and up to 8 metres (26 feet) below the surface.

In 1959 Louis Leakey had returned to England and was at the British Museum
of Natural History in London. While he was there he received a visit from Ruth
who showed some samples of the "tools" that had been found at the Calico site.

107
 Leakey had always believed that the number and distribution of native
languages in the Americas required more time than 12,000 years to evolve and
acquire their current distribution and these tools that Ruth had brought were
said to be dated to over 100,000 years or older suggesting a human presence in
North America much earlier than had been estimated.

Louis was over the moon about the "stone tools" and he began to take an active
interest in the site to the dismay of Mary his wife. The "tools" themselves were
very crude. They consisted mostly of cobbles that have one or two surfaces flaked
away to make a crude "choppers" or "hand axes", supposedly like the crude tools
of the Oldowan culture of Africa found from deposits formed about 2 million
years ago. Mary, who knew the Oldowan tools better, was not convinced, far from
it. The rocks themselves were typical of broken cobbles where chips had been
produced naturally. Besides, there was not a single human or animal bone
fragment (nearly always found in legitimate archaeological sites), piece of wood
or charcoal, or non-tool artifact found with the "tools".

Louis though was convinced by what Ruth had shown him and he managed in
1963 to obtain funds from the National Geographic Society for Calico.
Excavations at the site began in earnest. For Mary it was the last straw. Their
marriage eventually slid to a separation. She thought Louis had gone off the deep
end with the Calico site and she was tired of Louis' constant philandering with
other women. Besides she was now receiving recognition as the real scientist of
the group and continued to work at the Olduvai Gorge. And in 1960 she and
Jonathan Leakey their eldest son found some fossil bones that consisted of
fragmented parts of a lower mandible (which still held thirteen teeth including
wisdom teeth), an isolated maxillary molar, two parietal bones, and twenty-one
fingers, hand, and wrist bones. The bones, Mary nicknamed "Johnny's Child".

HOMO HABILIS (OH 7)

It was on 4th November 1960 when Mary and Jonathan discovered the
designated OH 7 fossils at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Johnny's Child were (along
with other hominid fossil fragments found earlier by his parents) formerly
described as a new species in the genus Homo in the April 1964 issue of Nature
magazine. He was called Homo habilis meaning "Handy Man" because there
were stone tools associated with the find which suggested that the hominid had
used these for skinning animals that he had killed for food. Louis supported Mary
with her analysis. He stated that Zinjanthropus was on an evolutionary pathway
that led up to man while Homo habilis was linked directly on the path. They were
convinced that they had found another missing link that had led from ape to
man.

108
 Homo habilis immediately ignited a heated debate among the anthropology
community which lasted through the 1970s. As early as May 1964, Kenneth
Oakley (1911 -1981) an English physical anthropologist, paleontologist and
geologist and Bernard Campbell (a lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge and
Harvard Universities) had raised concerns about the Leakey team's findings with
their own publication in Nature, and in July of that same year Sir Wilfrid Le Gros
Clark (1895 - 1971) professor of anatomy at Oxford University bluntly stated his
hope that Homo. habilis "will disappear as rapidly as he came."

It just so happened that Homo habilis was found in the same region where
Australopithecus boisei had previously been found and hence many researchers
of the time did not fully accept that Johnny's Child was sufficiently different from
Australopithecus africanus to denote a new species. The controversy and bias
against the newly named species lead some anthropologists to refer to Homo
habilis as Australopithecus habilis or assign associated fossil remains to other
Homo species. Other critics noted that OH 7 was found in a region known to
contain Paranthropus boisei fossils, was of an immature individual, and that the
differences between Homo habilis and Paranthropus boisei were not enough to
warrant a new species.

Louis would have none of this. He was convinced that Homo habilis was the
Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life looking for, and he placed him as a direct
human ancestor, with Homo erectus transplanted to a dead-end side branch.

The controversy continued for ten years by which time Louis had other things
on his mind. Still convinced about Calico Man he organised a conference of
archaeologists to come visit the Calico site in 1970. Visitors included such
luminaries of African anthropology as Desmond Clark and Glynn Isaac, but Louis
was profoundly disappointed when they came away unconvinced that the so
called "stone tools" had not been created through natural causes. No human
remains or evidence of human activities had been found at the site.

109
 Two years later in 1972, heartbroken over his failure at Calico and suffering
from a number of ailments, he died leaving his wife Mary and youngest son
Richard to carry the torch for the search of the ancestors of man in Africa.
Jonathan, the eldest son, did not follow his parents' profession and became a
business man instead. A few months before Louis died Richard had discovered a
large brained hominid in East Turkana, East Africa. This was it! This is what the
Leakeys had been searching for all these decades and Louis felt that all his efforts
had been vindicated - thanks to Richard. He would die a happy man.

HOMO RUDOLFENSIS (ER 1470)

In was in late 1972, that Richard unearthed a fossilised skull near Lake
Turkana, Kenya. The skull, which was subsequently accessioned by the Kenya
National Museum as East Rudolf specimen 1470 (or KNM-ER 1470 in
abbreviated form), was unearthed by Bernard Ngeneo - a field worker for
renowned paleontologist, Richard E. Leakey. It was not whole when found and
had to be painstaking reconstructed from scores of crushed or distorted
fragments, however when it was assembled it appeared to have a number of
human like attributes. Its cranial capacity was quite large about 810 cc, about
twice the size of a chimpanzee, and it had a high-domed vault compared to the
flat forehead of extinct australopithecines and modern-day apes. It had a flat face
and lacked the pronounced supraorbital tori (brow ridges). It was thought to
stand five feet tall and walk upright.

Richard and those of his team came to the conclusion that the skull of the
individual represented a possible intermediate form between early humans and
the australopithecines. It also seemed to support his father's startling suggestion

110
 that the Homo genus did not evolve from Australopithecus, but that parallel
lineages of hominids were developing at the same time. The scientific name
Pithecanthropus rudolfensis for the hominid was proposed in 1978 by V. P.
Alekseyev. It was later changed to Homo rudolfensis by Bernard Wood.

When Leakey made his find, he believed the skull was about 2.6 million years
old. So he sent samples of the rock in which 1470 was found to Cambridge,
England, for dating. Tests on these first samples gave an average age 221 million
years! This was more than 218 million years too great! It could not possibly be
right. So Leakey sent more samples away for analysis. From these the scientists
chose crystals in the volcanic rock that seemed fresher than others, and they
came up with an age of 2.4 million years. They later adjusted this to 2.6 million
years, plus or minus 260,000 years, which agreed well with Leakey's belief before
dating tests even began.

Once Richard announced his discovery he suddenly found himself in the

middle of a heated debate. The date 2.6 million years was a serious problem for
other anthropologists to accept. Richard said through Science News magazine
that, "Because of him (Leakey's Skull 1470) every single book on anthropology,
every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man's family tree will
have to be junked. They are apparently wrong". [6] Likewise National Geographic
Magazine said the same. "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out of our early
theories of early man...(It) leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be
arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change". [7]

It was apparent that Homo rudolfensis lived alongside Homo Habilis as well as
Australopithecus bosei and Australopithecus robustus. How could they all be
ancestors of man? It was all getting rather confusing. Then along came Lucy to
pour more oil onto the flames.

LUCY (AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS)

The Leakeys had not been the only people searching for man's ancestors in
Africa. Donald Johanson was an American paleoanthropologist who at the time
was an assistant and associate professor of anthropology at Case Western
Reserve University. He was in Africa in 1974 together with Maurice Taieb
(French Geologist) and Yves Coppens (French anthropologist) and they were
investigating the Afar Triangle region of Hadar, Ethiopia. Today, Johanson holds
an honorary doctorate from Case Western Reserve University and in 1981, he
established the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California.

It was on the 24th November 1974 that one of Johanson's students Tom Gray
caught the glint of a white fossilised bone out of the corner of his eye. Johanson
and his team immediately set to work uncovering what appeared to be a hominid,
and eventually forty percent of the skeleton was eventually recovered. Identified
as a female Johanson suggested she should be named "Lucy" after the Beatles'
song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" which was played repeatedly during the

111
 night of the discovery.

Lucy stood about three and a half feet tall, and Johanson and his team were
also able to deduce from Lucy's ribs that she was vegetarian. She had curved
finger bones which suggested that she was probably at home in trees. No foot
remains were found but Johanson speculated that Lucy could walk upright.

Lucy's scientific name became Australopithecus afarensis. The first word

means "Southern Ape" and the second word signifies she was discovered in the
Afar region. Ethiopians refer to her as "Dinqnesh." She is also classified in Hadar
as AL 288-1.

Lucy herself was not at first recognised as a distinct species, but was
considered an older member of Australopithecus africanus. It was only with the
later discovery of skulls of Australopithecus afarensis that convinced the general
palaeontological world that Lucy was of the same species.

In 1981 Johanson published a book entitled, Lucy: The Beginning of

Humankind. It became a New York Times best seller. Later in an interview that
took place in 2009 and in answer to the question, "What has changed since your
last book?" raised by interviewer Lauren E. Boh, Johanson responded, "What's
changed is we now have good anatomical, geological, archaeological evidence
that Neanderthals are not our ancestors." This admission was a giant leap
forward at a time when most anthropologists still believed that Neanderthals
were ape-like, brutish ancestors of Homo sapiens. [8]

As for Lucy, Johanson said, "She appeared at just the right time, I think, in
terms of paleoanthropology, in the sense that we had very few fossils beyond
three million years old at that point. Most of the evidence for human evolution
older than three million years, you could fit in the palm of your hand. One of the
major things she did was open wide that window. She showed us conclusively

112
 that upright walking and bipedalism preceded all of the other changes we'd
normally consider being human, such as tool-making. She gave us a glimpse of
what older ancestors would look like. Lucy is really at a nice point on the family
tree: she sits at this pivotal point between things that are more ancient and things
that are more modern" [9]

RIVALRY BETRAYS LACK OF EVIDENCE

Two teams were now actively working in Africa in the search of early ancestors
of Man. Richard Leakey and his team (including his wife Meave Leakey who
would succeed him) continued searching in Kenya, while Donald Johanson and
his team concentrated their efforts in Ethiopia. Unfortunately, this has led to a
bitter rivalry between them as each has sought to outdo the other.

The science journal New Scientist sums up the rivalry in their 26th March
1981 issue and raises an interesting observation. "Both Leakey and Johanson
have unhesitatingly used their discoveries to publicise their opposing schemes of
human evolution; and now their confrontation seems set to become an
undignified public scrap... So perhaps the heat rising from their
argument betrays the inadequacy of their evidence". [10] [bold mine]

The evidence thus far uncovered offered only conflicting interpretations of a

few skulls and bone fragments uncovered. Even Lucy was an enigma that was
thrown in the pot of ambiguity. New Scientist magazine had been right, the
evidence had been inadequate. It was clear then that substantially more evidence
was required to prove the Out of Africa scenario for the origins of the human
species. Both teams redoubled their efforts to build upon what they had

113
 discovered and it was Richard Leakey who would make the next important
discovery in 1984.

TURKANA BOY (HOMO ERECTUS)

The first discovery of Homo erectus remains was claimed by Yves Coppens, a
French anthropologist. He was one of the co-discoverers of Lucy along with
Donald Johanson and Maurice Taiebm of which I shall discuss later. In 1961 a
severely eroded fossil skull was found in Chad and was called Tchadanthropus
uxoris. It had been so eroded by wind-blown sand that it mimicked the
appearance of an Australopithecus. However, although it was designated as a
Homo erectus and is still described as such in some anthropologist journals and
writings such as Wikipedia, it has been ignored by most scientists, because it is
believed to be the badly eroded remains of a modern human, as Claud.
Bramblett, Professor Emeritus from the Department of Anthropology of the
University of Texas points out. "Uncertainties about the date, provenance, and
morphology resulted in the material being generally ignored. It has been
regarded very fragmentary and eroded modern skull fragments." [11]

In 1984 a member of Richard Leakey's team at Nariokotome near Lake

Turkana in Kenya, discovered an almost complete skeleton of an eleven or twelve
year old boy, only the hands and feet were missing. This discovery was to be
hailed as the first and most complete known specimen of Homo erectus to be
found in Africa, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was
880 cc, and it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood. Though
smaller on average than modern humans, it was still within the human range.

The Turkana Boy as he was called was 160 cm (5'3") tall, and estimates are that
he might have been about 185 cm (6'1") as an adult. Except for the skull, the
skeleton was very similar to that of modern boys in the region, although there are
a number of small differences. The most striking is that the holes in his vertebrae,

114
 through which the spinal cord goes, having only about half the cross-sectional
area that is found in modern humans.

It was thought that the boy had suffered from a congenital deformation of the
spine - possibly dwarfism or scoliosis. However, a new analysis, published in the
March issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in 2013, suggests
that apart from a herniated disc in his back, Turkana Boy was a fairly healthy
person with no genetic bone problems. The ribs had been arranged in the wrong
way originally. By rearranging the bones, the researchers found that Turkana Boy
actually had a symmetrical spine and rib cage, meaning he wasn't suffering from
dwarfism or scoliosis. [12]

Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins University and co-discoverer of Turkana boy

said that the boy's post cranial skeleton was so similar to that of modern man he
doubted whether an average pathologist could tell the difference. Furthermore,
Walker said that when they placed the jaw on the skull, it looked similar to
Neanderthal Man. In spite of the fact that Neanderthal Man is classified as fully
human Homo sapiens, and that the post cranial skeleton of this 12-year-old male
was essentially identical to that of modern man, both Leakey and Walker decided
to classify him as Homo erectus, a sub-human species, rather than Homo sapiens
primarily because of the reputed age of the skeleton.

Donald Johanson acknowledged the significance of Leakey's find and he

described the 1.6 million-year-old fossil is in these terms: "He was tall and thin,
in body shape and limb proportions resembling present-day equatorial Africans.
Despite his youth, the boy's limb nearly matched the mean measurements for
white North American adult males". [13]

115
KENYANTHROPUS PLATYOPS
It seemed that with the discovery of the Turkana Boy that Johnson and Leakey
and put the differences aside. However in 2001 Justus Erus, a member of a team
led by Meave Leakey, the wife of Richard Leakey fired a broadside at Johnson's
Lucy. Meave said that the new hominid discovery she named as Kenyanthropus
platyops, or "flat-faced man of Kenya" was about the same age as Lucy but
appeared to be a completely different and previously unknown species, with a
more human-like face. The discovery was that of a skull which had been found in
1998 along the shores of Lake Turkana, near where the Turkana boy had been
found. Leakey said the species represented by the new skull could have been an
ancestor of modern humans, or it could have been an evolutionary dead end. At
the same time, she said, the same could apply to Lucy too. [14]

Nature magazine of 22nd March 2001 said describes the Kenyanthropus

platyops as "A 3.5-million-year-old skull is a baffling mosaic of primitive and
advanced features". The magazine continues by saying, "The new discovery from
the famous Leakey stable will blur the already murky picture of man's distant
past. The find is a battered but almost complete skull and face of an entirely new
breed of early human. The most striking thing about this face is how human it
looks. It appears very similar to a fossil discovered in the 1970s on the eastern
shore of Lake Turkana - a skull almost universally known by its catalogue
number, KNM-ER 1470. Apart from having had a rather small brain, '1470 Man'
had a very human-like face - flat, rather than protruding like an ape, and with
small teeth..." [15]

Tim White, Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California,

Berkeley responded quickly on behalf of the Johanson team. Writing in Science
magazine in 2003 he raised a cautionary note, arguing that some fossils may be
so distorted that assignment to a new species is premature. Within the article he
claimed that the Kenyanthropus platyops skull was so severely distorted that it
could not reliably identified. He proposed instead that it may have been merely a
Kenyan version of Australopithecus afarensis, alias Lucy and said that natural

116
 variation among species must be taken into consideration. He concluded that
it was too early to say whether many more hominid lineages are waiting to be
found and recognised in Africa, or whether just a few hominid species expanded
their ranges and invaded new habitats. [16]

As the two rivals Leakey and Johanson continued to bicker about their
respective proofs of human evolution, Tim White who had by 2001 gone his
separate way stunned them both. In that year he made a sensational
announcement, the discovery of an almost complete skeleton of a hominid that
was 4.4 million years old. It was called Ardipithecus ramidus or "Ardi" for short.

ARDI (ARDIPITHECUS)
The Ardi skeleton was discovered at Aramis in the arid badlands near the
Awash River in Ethiopia in 1994 by college student Yohannes Haile-Selassie
when he uncovered a partial piece of a hand bone. A team of scientists led by Tim
White proceeded to excavate the area and their efforts did not go unrewarded.
They uncovered the most complete early hominid specimen ever found, with
most of the skull, teeth, pelvis, hands and feet. It was more complete than Lucy
and in all, 125 different pieces of fossilised bone were found. Ardi weighed about
110 pounds and was believed to be about four feet tall. She was female and
although she had had both opposable big toes and thumbs that indicated that she
like other apes climbed trees. It was also said that she could walk upright. [17]

Some researchers are unconvinced that Ardipithecus was quite as versatile to

be able to walk and climb trees. "This is a fascinating skeleton, but based on what
they present, the evidence for bipedality is limited at best," said William Jungers,
an anatomist at Stony Brook University in New York State. "Divergent big toes
are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you
can imagine," Jungers said. "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its
weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?" [18]
That was a very good question.

117
 The National Geographic Magazine of 2009 sensationalised the discovery by
saying, "OLDEST SKELETON OF HUMAN ANCESTOR FOUND - MOVE
OVER, LUCY. AND KISS THE MISSING LINK GOODBYE." There article
in the magazine went on to day, "Scientists today announced the discovery of the
oldest fossil skeleton of a human ancestor. The find reveals that our forebears
underwent a previously unknown stage of evolution more than a million years
before Lucy, the iconic early human ancestor specimen that walked the Earth 3.2
million years ago." [19]

THE DEBATE CONTINUES

What has been presented here are the main discoveries that have led to the
belief that the origins of man began in Africa. Known as the 'Out of Africa' model,
it is maintained that Homo ergaster, the name given to African Homo erectus
hominids, left Africa about 1.5 million years ago to populate other parts of the
world. Then later as Homo ergaster evolved into Homo sapiens, a second
migration between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago occurred and spread across
the world superseding all other hominid species.

Another theory, known as the 'Multi-regional' Model, is that Homo sapiens

evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world from original Homo
erectus settlers. This means that people in China descended from the Homo
erectus population there (Java Man, Peking Man), while Australians may have
descended from the Homo erectus population in South East Asia.

Both theories have their staunch defenders who cite DNA evidence - analysis
of the genetic blueprint passed down from generation to generation - to advance
their case. Out of Africa theorists, for example, say that most genetic variation in

118
 human populations is found in Africa, suggesting that humans have evolved
their for the longest period. As a result it is probably fair to say that the bulk of
scientists support the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis and believe that all humans share
a common origin.

The leading proponents for the Out of Africa theory for the origins of man are
of course Richard Leakey (and family) with Alan Walker and the Donald
Johanson and Tim White teams. It would be appropriate to end this particular
chapter by reading the views of these leading authorities, when the met again in
2009 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City to discuss
human origins. This was the first time Leakey and Johanson had shared a stage
since their public falling out in 1981 described above.

After brief introductions by AMNH president Ellen Futter and Gupta, Leakey
and Johanson each gave brief talks before sitting down with Gupta for a
discussion. Leakey spoke first, focusing on work his family (including parents
Louis and Mary, wife Meave and daughter Louise) and Alan Walker have
conducted in East Africa for more than 50 years. He observed that the public
often did not believe paleoanthropologists claims about human evolution, in part
because a lot of older fossils did not look human like and so he proposed that
scientists should take a different tack when talking about our origins. So leading
by example, Leakey proceeded to work his way back from Homo sapiens to "pre-
sapiens" species such as Homo erectus (Turkana Boy) and the even older
australopithecines.

Johanson spoke next, emphasising that all people alive today have ancestries
that can be traced back to Africa. He then described some of the challenges
scientists face in piecing together our origins, noting the questions surrounding
creatures that predate the australopithecines and that are said to be the earliest
human ancestors. He paid special attention to Ardi, asserting that the debate has
begun over whether it really belongs in the human family tree. Needless to say,
Johanson then gave an obligatory shout-out to his girl Lucy, the 3.2-million-year-
old partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis he found in Ethiopia, and also
mused about the broader significance of ancient human remains.

After Johanson's presentation, he and Leakey sat down with Gupta the
interviewer for a discussion. Gupta started by asking why it matters where we
came from. The discussion turned to creationism and education, which provoked
strongly worded responses from both men. Leakey remarked that "there are a lot
of people in this country and around the world who find it much easier to live
with a faith-based explanation of our origins. I have no problem with
that....Where I take exception - and I take exception as a citizen of the world - is
that faith-based explanations should not be forced to the exclusion of biology-
based explanations....In Africa - and I think it's true in many parts of the
developing world - we're seeing science edged out because some people don't
believe in human evolution. And I think the teaching of science is fundamentally
important to the future of our species." [20]

119
 I end this chapter with the words of Richard Leakey echoing in my ears.
"Where I take exception is that faith-based explanations should not be forced to
the exclusion of biology-based explanations". In this I agree with Leaky. Faith-
based explanations for the origins of man should not be forced upon the public
regardless whether it be evolution (biology-based explanations) or religion,
which is what Leakey implied. However, the fact of the matter is that the origins
of man as presented by evolution is a faith-based theory, and it has been forced
upon an unsuspecting public for more than one hundred and fifty years. You
don't believe me? Please read on as the following chapters will prove beyond
reasonable doubt that what I am saying is true.

120
 Chapter 6
THE APEMEN THAT NEVER WERE

"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes. "
(Richard Dawkins, "A Devil's Chaplain")

In the proceeding chapters I have presented the story of the evolution of man
as it has been presented to the general public for the last one-hundred and fifty
years as shown through newspapers, magazines, books and public presentations
such as in museums, television and movies. I have purposely made no criticisms
or other comments because I wanted to give those who support the theory of
evolution a fair opportunity to present their case through their own publicity.

I have also not made a reference to any Creationist publications either so I

cannot be accused of being a Creationist fundamentalist with a chip on my
shoulder. Hence, what you have read has been written and promoted by
evolutionists themselves or reported by them to newspapers or science
publications just as each discovery was made and presented to the world. I have
not glossed over or hidden anything from you. However, the time has come to set
the record straight and view the big picture as it is now presented today - and I
will still use evolutionist publications and media as references.

In my study of the evolutionary record of human origins as presented in this

121
 book I have to say in all honesty I am not impressed. I will be surprised if you
the reader does not feel the same assuming that you have read this with an open
mind and not been blinkered by evolutionary or religious preconceived ideas. For
me the evidence appears to be a muddled interpretation of fragments of bones by
desperate and honour seeking individuals that want to make name for
themselves. No other science discipline operates in such an arrogant or non-
scientific way.

I cringed when I read the words of evolution fundamentalists like Richard

Dawkins who is emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University
of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
He once said "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims
not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." [1] What arrogance!

I wonder what a scientist from a different science discipline would say if he or

she was to look at the evidence that Richard Dawkins believes proves his beloved
evolution be true. In his book The Making of Mankind published in 1981
Richard Leakey quoted the words of David Pilbeam (Henry Ford II Professor of
the Social Sciences at Harvard University and curator of paleoanthropology at
the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology) who puts forward that very
scenario:

"If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed
him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'forget it: there isn't
enough to go on'. Neither David nor others involved in the search for
mankind can take this advice, of course, but we remain fully aware of
the dangers of drawing conclusions from evidence that is so
incomplete" [2]

I guess that the aforementioned scientist would be in the eyes of Richard

Dawkins ignorant, stupid or insane. After all with such meagre evidence available
to support the evolution of man as admitted by two leading evolutionists can one
really say that Dawkins is justified by what he said?

Did not Richard Leakey say that under such circumstances they would be more
careful in drawing conclusions from evidence that is so incomplete? The evidence
is so sparse that finding a theory that will fit is fraught with difficulties. Hence, it
is not surprising to find that paleontologists cannot agree on how the evolution of
man had taken place - even now. As Dr. Tim White evolution anthropologist at
the University of California in Berkeley says, "Elite paleontologists disagree over
even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid
great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds." [3]

The editor of Nature magazine said the same in 2011.

122
 "We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming
more human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is
tosh. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have
been like still colour our debates. ... almost every time someone
claims to have found a new species of hominin, someone else
refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of Homo sapiens,
but pathological, or an ape." [4][bold mine]

Writing about Richard Leakey's earlier book Origins published in 1978 David
Pilbeam remarked on the difficulties paleontologists face when interpreting the
"evidence".

"My reservations concern not so much this book but the whole subject
and methodology of paleoanthropology . . . Perhaps generations of
students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about
in the dark . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able
to mould our theories". [5]

From what you have just read it is little wonder that there is no consensus for
the origins of man through evolution. And this is after one hundred-fifty years of
research and the gathering of evidence. The facts of the matter is that so many so
called ancestors of men could easily be simply extinct species of monkeys or apes
and to call them anything else is stretching credibility to the limit.

It is not the first time that extinct monkeys and apes have been misinterpreted
as having been ape-like ancestors of man. For example as recent as 1995 amid a
fanfare of publicity Nature magazine reported a remarkable find in China. Under
the heading EARLY HOMO AND ASSOCIATED ARTIFACTS FROM
ASIA, the report described how nine anthropologists discovered early
representatives of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster in China. They said that the
fossils were those of a primitive form of Homo found near the Wu Xia Gorge of
China's Yang tze River and thought to be at least 1.9 million years old. This
suggested that Homo erectus was endemic to Asia. The conclusion was that
hominids may therefore have entered Asia around the time of the earliest
diversification of the genus Homo in Africa.

"Back in Africa, the discovery of a 3-million-year-old australopithecine

jawbone from Chad is the earliest record of an early hominid outside
the Rift Valley, and is a marked westward extension to the 'cradle of
humanity'". [6]

Fourteen years later in 2009 the same magazine printed a retraction. Under

123
 the heading "THE MYSTERY APE OF PLEISTOCENE ASIA" an apology
was made.

"Fossil finds of early humans in south-east Asia may actually be the

remains of an unknown ape. Russell Ciochon says that many
palaeoanthropologists - including himself - have been mistaken." [7]

Russel Ciochon is professor of Anthropology University of Iowa and it was

brave of him to admit his error. Yet the myth of the ape-man persists even though
within the last two decades the story of man from the standpoint of evolution has
changed so dramatically that the evidence presented for the last one hundred and
fifty years as proof of the theory has changed beyond all recognition and in many
cases are now invalid.

Like the shifting sands of the desert, some of the evidence "proving" evolution
has been discarded, while others have been moved around and reclassified to fit
different interpretations of evolutionary anthropologists that have their own pet
beliefs. The time has come to take a look at these changes, starting from the
1960's and see how the origins of man was seen at that time. From there we shall
move on to the present day to see how things have changed since then. It is an
extraordinary transformation, one that will surprise you but it will make the
theory that this book proposes all the more pertinent because it fits the facts
about Neanderthals far better than the present evolution theory has ever done.

THE 1960'S
By the time we reach the 1960's, a little over a hundred years after the first
Neanderthal was unearthed, the idea that man had descended from the apes or
apelike ancestors had become untenable. Few dared to question the
Neanderthal/ape-man hypothesis other than certain Christian extremists, many
of whom still touted the same old story that the earth had been created in six
twenty-four days, or declared that the King James Bible was the real Bible.
Understandably, nobody could take them seriously - and neither do I. The ape-
man scenario his fitted in so snugly with the prevailing belief that the natural
world had been the product of evolutionary processes that for many people there
was no need for any supernatural intervention to explain the origins for man.

Confidence in the belief in the origins of man through evolution was so strong
that in 1965 a book was published called Early Man by Time-Life Books and in it
was a picture called "The March of Progress" that had been illustrated by
Rudolph Zallinger. The picture depicted an ape slowly evolving through fifteen
stages of human evolution into modern man. The parade was printed in a 36-
inch fold-out on pages 41 to 45 in the 1965 edition and reprinted in both the 1968
and 1973 editions.

124
 The book had been written by Francis Clark Howell (1925 - 2007), a highly
respected American anthropologist. Howell was a member of the United States'
National Academy of Sciences. He was also a member or fellow of the science
institutes and academies of France, Britain and South Africa. He received the
Charles Darwin Award for lifetime achievement from the American Association
of Physical Anthropologists and the Leakey Prize in 1998 from the L.S.B. Leakey
Foundation. The California Academy of Sciences awarded him its Fellows Medal
in 1990. With such credentials and with over 200 scientific papers and reviews to
his name, the book Early Man described here should have contained
considerable accurate information (at least as was perceived in the 1960's) that
supported the theory of evolution pertaining to the origins of man. But did it?

MISLEADING PROPAGANDA
Evolutionists today will be quick to say that the picture is grossly inaccurate
because, according to the current reckoning, man has evolved from ape-like
ancestors not in a straight evolving line as depicted in the picture but rather like
the branches of a tree. However for the public the picture only confirmed what
they had been taught in schools, colleges, universities and what they had seen in
the popular media - the press, movies and television. The picture may today be
considered wrong but that is the concept that had been sold to the public for
decades.

At the time the book was published it was lauded and approved. For example,
a review of the book by Creighton Gabel, Boston University as appeared in
American Anthropologist in 1966 says that the book will "serve admirably as a
supplementary text in undergraduate anthropology courses. Furthermore, it
should be useful to all professional anthropologists whose specialties lie outside
the field of paleoanthropology." [8] In other words, the contents of the book was
authoritative.

The book's style with lavish imaginative pictures and easy reading captured the
imagination of children and adults alike. It was a magnificent propaganda
exercise, whether intentional or not, but the results were the same nonetheless.

125
 People especially children without realising it would soon become
indoctrinated by the evolution world view that the book promoted. It made them
very receptive to the theory of evolution in later life, no matter how inaccurate
the evidence in the book had been presented.

Mary C. Stiner of the Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona

writing for the Journal of Human Evolution makes the following comment:

"Many readers of this journal will have vivid memories of a TimeLife

Nature series volume entitled "Early Man", a riveting and richly
illustrated publication on human evolution that came out in 1965. This
slim volume by F. Clark Howell and M. Edey (1965) ignited the interest
of children throughout the English-speaking world in the great
questions of human origins. The "Early Man" volume was
unprecedented for its scope and message, making the record of human
ancestry seem simultaneously rich, mysterious, and scientifically
accessible" [9]

To be fair the book did say that, "Many of the figures shown here have been
built up" from a few fragments, "a jaw, some teeth perhaps…and thus are
products of educated guessing" (Howell, 1970, p. 41). The author added that
"even if later finds should dictate changes,"i.e., even if the drawings are wrong,
"these reconstructions serve a purpose in showing how these creatures might
have looked". But I wonder how many people looked at the book without
realising that what the were looking at was actually a fictional story of
imagination and "educated guessing" based upon a few bone fragments or some
teeth?

Creighton Gabel of whom I have already mentioned who incidentally was the
editor of the Journal of Field Archaeology from 1986 to 1995 and co-founder of
the Department of Archaeology at Boston University said of the book that it was
impressively produced, with few if any errors. He said:

"In spite of the number of preceding works on the subject, Early Man
must be regarded as a valuable contribution toward a broad
understanding of fossil man. Especially in a book written for the lay
public one expects to find an irritating degree of superficiality, which
somehow these authors have managed to avoid. They have presented
the excitement of the quest for early man and have clearly outlined his
nature and accomplishments while employing a minimum of poetic
license ... In order to flesh out the "bare bones" of prehistoric man, a
number of the chapters contain fairly restrained artists' conceptions of
Paleolithic life... Generally, the book is impressively produced, with few
if any errors..." [10]

126
 In hindsight it is quite clear that Creighton Gaber was very wrong with regard
to his statements about "restrained artists' conceptions of Palaeolithic life", "few
errors", "while employing a minimum of poetic license". Inside the book Howard
had already said that his pictures were "products of educated guessing". If that is
not poetic license what is? However, it is much worse. The first candidates for the
evolution of man, the proto-apes of Pliopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopithecus and
Oreopithecus were not bipedal (having two feet) yet they are shown in the
illustrations as being completely bipedal.

The text openly admits this, stating, "although proto-apes and apes were
quadripedal, all are shown here standing for purposes of comparison". (Howell,
1970, p.41) Comparison of what? Accurate comparisons require showing their
actual normal quadripedal gate. Why were they drawn this way? The answer is
simple! To present the illusion that man had evolved from ancestors that right
from the beginning had walked on two legs.

To make matters worse some of the creatures shown in the parade were
physically unable to stand erect. Although the text describes them simply as
"standing," they are actually drawn walking across the page, some of them having
one foot in the air, balancing on the other foot as they strode across the page.
This gives them a far more human-like appearance than if they had just standing.
It is an illusion is powerfully presented and the unsuspecting public is unaware of
the deception that they have been exposed to. This is really bad science, but then
evolutionary science is full of such inaccuracies that have been clothed in ways
designed to mislead the public, as we shall shortly demonstrate in this book.

Another deception that the "March of Progress" makes is that the relative sizes
of the illustrations are distorted and inaccurate. The first link in the "March to
Progress" starts as a very small primate (Pliopithecus) and progressively, with
only two exceptions (Dryopithecus and Solo Man), the links growing larger and
taller while standing up straighter as the panorama progresses. Clearly, extreme
poetic license has been applied here because the figures become taller with no
fossil evidence supporting such a conclusion. In addition, as each figure moves
up the scale to modern man the amount of body hair decreases. Again this is
another example of poetic licence based upon preconceived ideas about early
man being hairy.

Whatever evolutionists might say about "The March of Progress" in the Time-
Life Book there can be no doubt that perhaps no other illustration is immediately
recognisable as representing evolution. Evolutionists may say that it does not
reflect the current view of the evolution of man but whose fault is that? The book
and the picture was not produced by a Creationist fundamentalist fanatic but
rather by Francis Clark Howell a highly respected American anthropologist. He
was an evolutionist through and through and had many honours bestowed upon
him including the Fellows Medal by the California Academy of Sciences to him
awarded him its twenty-five years later after the publication of the book.

127
 Howell later remarked that "The artist didn't intend to reduce the evolution of
man to a linear sequence, but it was read that way by viewers.… The graphic
overwhelmed the text. It was so powerful and emotional". Yes it was powerful
and emotional and one would not expect readers to view it any other way. And as
we shall see later things have not got any better although we now use a tree
instead. Regardless how wrong the illustration may be one thing is clear. In 1965
Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon and Homo Sapien were still leading the pack and
while I could argue that Cro-Magnon should have been shown taller than modern
man I know that would upset the status quo and we can't have that can we? In
the illustration Neanderthal is still shown as an ape-man - keep that in mind.

What follows next is a discussion of each "ancestor of man" from the Early
Man book, as well as others not described therein but publicised elsewhere in the
media. In the process the reader will soon become aware that some of the
"proofs" of the origins of man through evolution as discussed in the previous
chapters are conspicuously missing in the "March of Progress". What has
happened? The truth is about to be revealed and for evolutionists it does not
make happy reading.

NABRASKA MAN
It is incredulous to think today that someone could look at a tooth and declare
that it once belonged to an ape-like ancestor of man. But if that person was none
other than Henry Fairfield Osborn, a man of the highest reputation and head of
one of America's leading museums, New York's American Museum of Natural
History, it would foolhardy to object without being able to offer counter evidence
that said otherwise. Besides, it was becoming common by now to find a few teeth
and perhaps a jawbone and become an instant celebrity when it was announced.
One only needed to point to Otto Schoetensack's Heidelberg Man (1907) as
evidence of this. Besides, the announcement of America's first anthropoid ape
was certainly an object of great pride.

Some evolutionists have argued that Nabraska Man, other than the London
Illustrated News, did not get much publicity in the press, but this is quite
incorrect. Osborn himself said, "One of my friends, Prof. G. Elliot Smith, has
perhaps shown too great optimism in his most interesting newspaper and
magazine articles on Hesperopithecus ..." (Osborn, 1922d, p. 281.) What
newspaper and magazine articles was Osborn talking about? It certainly got a full
spread in the New York Times on 17th September 1922 for example under the
heading "NABRASKA'S 'APE MAN OF THE WESTERN WORLD'". The
sub-heading said, "Scientists Construct New Million-Year-Old Link from Tooth
Found Near Bryan's Former Home - First Evidence of Anthropoid in United
States" There was even a large picture of gorilla just in case people missed the
point.

128
 The discovery was also reported in Journal of Nature 26th August 1922. "This
discovery constitutes an event of the utmost importance for the science of
anthropology no less than for geology. Future developments will be watched with
keen interest, said "American Anthropologist"" (1922 p.249). And what about
what was said in the New York Times 19th February, 1925 when it reported on
the tooth having been dropped and broken.

"The so-called "million-dollar" Hesperopithecus tooth of the American

museum of Natural History which proves that a manlike ape inhabited
Nebraska in prehistoric times, has been accidentally broken to pieces,
it was learned yesterday, but has been reconstructed and is still useful.
Obese volumes have been written in this country about this famous
molar and it has appeared frequently in the anthropological literature
of Europe. It was the first proof that an ape-man or a man-ape had
existed in America." [11]

It is not correct to say that Nabraska Man was not well known as some
evolutionists have claimed as the aforementioned references have demonstrated.

"Obese volumes have been written in this country about this

famous molar and it has appeared frequently in the
anthropological literature of Europe". One can also add that in
Britain Nabraska Man was accepted as an early ape-man. "Dr. Elliot
Smith, the English scientist, recently wrote to Professor Gregory that
British scientists were practically a unit in accepting the interpretation
placed by the authorities of the American Museum of Natural History

129
 on the tooth." [12]

It should be said that from the start there were some doubters about the
Osborn's interpretation of the tooth and to be fair Osborn had not liked the
picture that was published in the London Illustrated News. He is reported to
have said that so little was known of "Hesperopithecus" at the time that such a
drawing or 'reconstruction' would doubtless be only a figment of the imagination
of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate. However, this did not prevent
him from still promoting the tooth as belonging to an ape-man.

Although both Osborn and some of Smith's colleagues at the British Museum
described the drawing as inaccurate and "of no scientific value," these opinions
were not blazoned to the public like the mythical drawing was, and no public
repentance was made.

It was a case of going with the flow but no sooner had Osborn declared that the
tooth belonged to an ape-man ancestor of man he became embroiled in a heated
debate over the issue of the theory of Darwin with William Jennings Bryan (1860
- 1925). He was a leading American politician who became Secretary of State
under President Woodrow Wilson during the years 1912 to 1915. Later Bryan also
actively lobbied for state laws banning public schools from teaching evolution
and it was his participation in the highly publicized 1925 Scopes Trial that
brought Osborn and he to "verbal" blows. The tooth although never used as
evidence in the trial itself was nonetheless the subject of many heated exchanges
in the American press at the time.

Bryan mocked Osborn on the eve of the trial:

"His latest "newly discovered evidence" is a long lost witness captured

in Nebraska. He would probably have declared it "irrefutable" even if it
had been found in some other State, -- all the evidence on his side
seems "irrefutable" to him, -- but the fact that it was found in
Nebraska, my home state for a third of a century, greatly multiplied its
value. Some one searching for fossils in a sand hill came upon a lonely
tooth . . . . The body of the animal had disappeared, and all the other
pieces of "imperishable ivory" had perished; not even a jaw bone
survived to supply this Sampson of the scientific world with a weapon
to use against the Philistines of to-day. But a tooth in his hand is, in his
opinion, an irresistible weapon.

The finder of this priceless tooth, conscious that it could impose upon
but a few, even among those who prefer speculation to reason, wisely
chose Professor Osborn. He hastily summoned a few congenial spirits,
nearly as credulous as himself, and they held a postmortem
examination on the extinct animal, which had at one time been the
proud possessor of this "infinitesimal" and "insignificant" tooth. After

130
 due deliberation, they solemnly concluded and announced that the
tooth was the long looked-for and eagerly longed-for missing link
which the world awaited. The Professor's logic leaks at every link, but it
is no worse than that of his boon companions who, having rejected the
authority of the word of God, are like frightened men in the dark,
feeling around for something they can lean upon. (Bryan, 1925, pp.
104-105)

The verbal battle between Bryan and Osborn and their "followers" raged for a
number of years until the untimely death of Bryan in 1925. Upon Bryan's death
Osborn is reported to have said that 'every suggestion made by scientific sceptics
was weighed and found wanting.' [13] However, two years later Osborn might
have wished he had not said those words.

It was in the summer of 1927 that things started to go badly wrong for Osborn.
A fossil-hunter named Albert Thompson who was a long time collector for the
museum headed off to the Snake Creek quarry where the original tooth had been
found. He was on the trail of more specimens of Nebraska man and with him was
Harold Cook, the original finder of the tooth and Austrian paleontologist Dr
Othenio Abel. Shortly afterwards, Thomson wrote a letter to Osborn saying,
"Yesterday, ... Dr Othenio Abel, Harold Cook and I went over to the famous
Hesperopithecus locality. Dr. Abel was fortunate enough to pick up a very
beautiful Hesperopithecus upper molar..." [14] However, when Barnam Brown
(1873 - 1963), the paleontologist who became famous for discovering first
documented remains of Tyrannosaurus rex joined the team at the site, he was far
from convinced.

Brown made two trips to Nabraska (18th June - 11th July and 11th July to 21st
August 1925) and upon his return to the museum he wrote to Thompson to
congratulate him on finding more "monkey teeth". However, later he confided
with Thompson "In looking over the teeth, I am still very doubtful as to whether
they are 'primate' or 'peccary'." [15]

It was not long before it became apparent that the teeth found at the Nabraska
site had come from the jaw of an extinct pig. It was left to William King Henry
( 1876 -1970) who had been appointed by Osborn to the scientific staff at the
American Museum of Natural History to make known the error. It was a bitter
pill to swallow, especially for Osborn, who, due perhaps to his arrogance as well
as embarrassment over the error, did not co-author the retraction. [16]

In a letter under the title "HESPEROPITHECUS APPARENTLY NOT AN

APE NOR A MAN", Henry wrote:

"Last summer (1927) Mr. Thomson made further excavations in the

exact locality where the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was
discovered. A number of scattered upper and lower premolar and

131
 molar teeth were found in different spots, but every one of them
appears to me to pertain to Prosthennops, and some of these also
resemble the type of Hesperopithecus, except that the crown is less
worn. Thus it seems to me far more probable that we were formerly
deceived by the resemblances of the much worn type to equally worn
chimpanzee molars than that the type is really a unique token of the
presence of anthropoids in North America." [17]

Understandabley, the admission was far from conspicuous. Time Magazine of

27th February, 1928 was more forthright.

"Authorities at the American Museum of Natural History, last week,

candidly stated that in one particular they had been wrong, and the late
William Jennings Bryan and his Fundamentalist disciples right. The
particular was an old tooth, found five years ago by Paleontologist
Harold Cook, in an ancient Nebraska river bed... Recent diggings in
Nebraska revealed a few similar and more perfect teeth. These the
museum staff had studied and were delighted to learn that they had
erred in their first deduction. The teeth, they announced last week, had
served no anthropoidal beast, but an ancient, bristly, snub-nosed pig, a
peccary, rooting in Nebraska several millennia ago." [18]

It was a strange confession for Time Magazine to make, where it said "the
museum staff had studied and were delighted to learn that they had erred in their
first deduction". They were in other words saying that they were pleased that they
had made an error! How odd! However, what is important is that Osborn's
museum team admitted "that in one particular they had been wrong, and the late
William Jennings Bryan and his Fundamentalist disciples had been right".

The New York Times next poured more oil onto the flames - but with a let out
clause. "NEBRASKA APE TOOTH PROVED A WILD PIG" the paper
reported. "'Million-Dollar' Molar Stirred Six-Year Battle Which Ends in Victory
for Peccary". However, it also said reservedly that "NEAR HUMAN, SCIENCE
HELD". The newspaper explained it this way:

"The "million-dollar tooth," or Hesperopithecus tooth, which was

found in an ancient river bed in Nebraska in 1922 and put forward by
scientists of the American Museum of Natural History as proof that an
ape-man or forerunner of the human species lived millions of years ago
in America, has been positively identified, it was learned yesterday, as
the tooth of an extinct wild pig."

The paper then went on to say, in effect, that the science of ape-like ancestors

132
 of man was still valid despite this setback. Evidently, the idea that man had
descended from apes had by now been so deeply entrenched in popular
imagination that to say otherwise would be heretical.

If Osborn and his team thought that was the end of the matter, they could not
have been more wrong. One of the "Fundamentalist disciples" mentioned was Dr
Straton (1875 - 1929), a noted pastor of his day who had argued against Nebraska
Man from the start was not about to let the matter drop and disappear without
having his say.

The story made the news in the New York Times, no less. Under the heading
DR. STRATON OFFERS A 'PIG-TOOTH' DEBATE and said "SAN JOSE,
Cal., Feb. 26.--THE TIMES article giving the news of the million-dollar pig-tooth
expose has just reached me. This exposure justifies my assertion of some time
ago that evolution is the most gigantic bluff in the history of the mankind.

Today, some evolutionists like Jim Foley will say that "Most other scientists
were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth
belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely
accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the
scientific thinking of the time was negligible." [21]

Rebuttal to Jim Foley's Comments

1. "Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the
Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate." (Jim Foley)

That to me is a misleading statement. All I can say is that in England, except

for Dr Arthur Smith Woodward who wanted to see more evidence before he put a
rubber stamp on it, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith (1871 - 1937) said that "British
scientists were practically a unit in accepting the interpretation". In other words,
according to Smith, most scientists in the UK agreed with the interpretation of
Hesperopithecus being an ape-like ancestor of man, while at the same time the
evidence suggests that many American scientists also supported Osborne too.
Smith was a highly respected scientist who received the Huxley Memorial Medal
from the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1936.
His words did carry weight.

It is true that there were some skeptics but from my researches it was they who
were in the minority and it is certainly true to say that they were not the majority
as is claimed above.

2. "It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-
man." (Jim Foley)

On this I have to disagree with Foley. Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man) was

widely accepted as an "ape-man". Newspapers around the world reported with
confidence, right from the beginning, "NABRASKA'S APE MAN OF THE

133
 WESTERN WORLD". Where on earth did the newspapers get such an idea?
Certainly Osborn did not deny it, at least not publicly - and if this was incorrect
then the public was fed a lie.

3. "Its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible." (Jim
Foley)

Again this is a misleading statement. What Foley says may have been true as
far as the scientific community was concerned but for the interested public this
message obviously was not made clear. It is conveniently forgotten that the
public who saw the picture in the London Illustrated and read the stories do not
have the convenience of knowing any better. The public belief that Nabraska Man
was an ape-man didn't just happen on its own. It was the result of the statements
made by scientists at the time, and the spin put on it in the popular press and
publications.

The impact on the public was very important especially in connection with the
Scopes Trial mentioned above. Evolutionists may wish to forget the blunder but
to sweep it under the carpet as being of no significance in the hope of it going
away stinks of a cover up.

Jim Foley "cops out" on his website by saying that "Nebraska Man" should not
be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were
mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was
actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best."

To some extent I agree with Foley. When someone declares a tooth to be that
of an early ape-man he was clearly mistaken. Osborn had not been dishonest - he
had been incompetent! And as far as Foley's statement that the tooth was an
"excellent example of the scientific process working at its best" only a desperate
evolutionist would be fooled by such mockery of evidence - a tooth! Really!
Science may have eventually found out about the pig tooth in the end, but it
would not have been necessary had common sense prevailed. You cannot build
an ancestor of man based in a single tooth. That is not science! It is fantasy, pure
and simple.

A few months later, Osborn made a public appearance. Humbled he gave an

address before the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia on 29th April,
1927. Without discarding Darwin's theory of evolution he said:

"I regard the ape-human theory as totally false and misleading. It

should be banished from our speculations and from our literature not
on sentimental grounds but on purely scientific grounds and we should
now resolutely set our faces toward the discovery of our actual
prohuman ancestors..." [22]

134
 Osborn's statement is clearly one of self denial. If not why was it that four glass
cases in the 'Hall of the Age of Man' at his American Museum of Natural History
in New York City there were exhibited example reproductions of man's ape
origins. For example, in case No. 2 there was mounted a bust of the Piltdown
man conceived and executed by Professor J. H. MacGregor. The bust was
described as a "restoration," a "missing link," a sort of "side branch of the human
family which has left no descendants at all." (In 1929 there were 5 cases and
Piltdown Man was in case No 3).

The Piltdown exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History was still
there in 1953 when all hell was about to be let loose. What Osborn did not know
was that his error would be trivial in comparison with what was to follow next.
While his interpretation of a tooth supposedly belonging to an ape-like
descendant of man had been the result of an over zealous imagination and his
own prejudices and beliefs, Piltdown Man turned out to be a deception that the
BBC would later describe as "BRITAIN'S GREATEST HOAX". As Kate
Bartlett the editor of the story mockingly pointed out that, "Piltdown Man fooled
the scientific community for some forty years before the hoax was finally
discovered". [23]

THE PILTDOWN MAN HOAX

135
 I will not labour too much on the Piltdown Man hoax as there has been much
written about this deception elsewhere. However, I do need at least to discuss the
deception because some evolutionists argue that because it happened a long time
ago such things do not happen anymore and that the scientific method had
eventually worked in this case.

It is true that the Piltdown Man hoax was fabricated in 1912 but it played a key
role in convincing the general public that the theory of evolution was proven and
that man had descended from apes. For forty years the falsified evidence
fermented a struggle between the opposing religious and scientific communities
setting pastor against geologist and anatomist against anthropologist. It would
ignite a war of words that would eventually lead by the time the deception was
discovered in 1952 to the almost secular acceptance of the story of man's origins
through evolution. When it was discovered, the ramifications were catastrophic -
for a time. However, eventually evolutionists came up with a solution that would
to some extent, water down the whole episode. They said that the scientific
method had ultimately found the truth thereby hinting that this was just a blip.

This is what Jonathan Amos, of BBC News, said in December 2012 to reassure
people that the scientific method found out the truth. Under the heading
"Piltdown Man: A hoaxer still pursued" he said:

"It was a shocker, no doubt about it. The Piltdown Man scandal is
arguably the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated in the UK...
When the fake remains of our earliest ancestor were unmasked for
what they really were, shame was heaped on the research
establishment...You would be forgiven for thinking that the British
scientific community would really have liked to pack the Piltdown
specimens in a box and have them crushed. But the memory and
interest is maintained, if for no other reason than the whole affair

136
 serves as a warning for how things can go horribly wrong. That said, it
proves also the power of the scientific method ultimately to
find the truth." [24] [bold mine]

That the scientific method is touted as having found out the truth is a laugh.
What is conveniently forgotten is that the so called scientific method with respect
to Piltdown Man had been applied forty years later and then only by accident!
The reason it took so long was because Arthur Smith Woodward had refused to
allow anybody else to analyse the Piltdown fossils that were kept at the British
Museum. It did not matter to him that some scientists were having doubts about
his discovery. As far as he was concerned he had proved the ape-man human
ancestry with Piltdown Man, and it was now shown in museums all over the
world and described in over 2000 publications. Further investigation he
considered was unnecessary. However, his death in 1944 meant that the fossil
remains of Piltdown Man could now be accessed, should scientists want to. The
problem was that nobody did, and for another ten years Woodward's famous
Piltdown fossil man remained the definitive proof of the origin of man by
evolution.

By 1950 a range of analytical procedures and dating techniques, all unthought

of in the early years of the twentieth century, had been developed. One of these
was the fluorine dating test. This test worked on the principle that fluorine is
present in all ground waters, usually in extremely small quantities. As it is
absorbed by both bone and dentine, the fluorine content of any skeletal remains
buried in permeable ground such as gravel, should theoretically increase with
time. Any bone added to a natural deposit of permeable ground (in the form of a
grave or other deliberate interment), will naturally possess considerably less
fluorine than any bone material set down when the deposit was originally
formed.

137
 The discovery of the fraud might not have been found even now had it not
been for one day in July 1953, when Joseph Weiner attended a conference in
London on "Research on Fossil Hominidae in Africa". It got him thinking about
Piltdown Man because it just seemed to be out of place with what was being
presented at the conference.

Weiner contacted his immediate superior professor Wilfred Edward Le Gros

Clark (1895 - 1971) who was a British anatomist surgeon, primatologist and
paleoanthropologists at Oxford University, and told him that he felt something
was amiss with Piltdown Man. Clark telephoned Kenneth Oakley (1911 - 1981)
who worked at the British Museum of Natural History (1935 - 69) and discussed
with him their misgivings. Oakley listened and thought it would be a great
opportunity to check out the cranium and jaw of Piltdown Man as well as other
animals bones that had been found at the discovery site with the new fluorine
test.

Oakley first submitted fossil animal bones that been excavated from the
Piltdown site to the fluorine test, and as expected they showed varying amounts
of fluorine. However, the test was applied to the cranium or jaw of the fossil
human they exhibited as much as ten times less that the animal fossils, which
indicated that they were very recent in age. Something was obviously wrong. A
more precise test was applied to larger samples of the cranium and jaw. The
results were quite conclusive; the skull and jaw were of entirely different ages and
belonged to two different creatures. The jaw either belonged to an orangutan or
chimpanzee. In addition, the appearance of age had been artificially chemically
stained while the canine tooth had been stained with an artist's pigment and filed
down to simulate human wear; the pulp cavity had been filled with a substance
not unlike chewing gum.

The verdict was clear. Piltdown Man's place in human evolution had been
answered: it had no place. Piltdown Man was a hoax.

As I said earlier there is no point in discussing the Piltdown Man hoax any
further as there are a good number of books that describe the deception in vivid
detail. The important thing to remember is that Piltdown Man played a
significant part in the promotion of the evolution of man, but by the time the
fraud had been discovered, the damage had been done. It was too late! People
now believed in evolution thanks to Piltdown Man. Although the fraud had been
exposed the public was assured that there was so much fossil evidence to support
the evolution of man that the theory was beyond question. Fooled again the
gullible public listened and believed, not knowing that the suggestion that there
was considerable fossil evidence to support the theory was in fact another lie!

THE GRAND ILLUSION!

There are over four-hundred remains of Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon,
including almost complete skeletons. Take these away and a remarkable

138
 discovery is made. What we are left with are hundreds of "fragments" of so
called ancestors of man comprising isolated teeth, single bones, jaw bones and a
number of skull caps. This then was the considerable evidence touted by
evolutionists.

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley) writing in

the August 1982 issue of Natural History, a monthly magazine published by the
American Museum of Natural History, makes the following comment.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to

find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." [25]

A year later White proved what he said when he locked swords with Dr. Noel
Boaz of the University of New York in connection with what was reported by Boaz
as "a five million-year-old piece of collarbone" belonging to a human like
creature. White identified it as nothing more than a part of a dolphin rib. [26]
Déjà vu? How strange! Why did I think of Nebraska Man when I read that article
in New Scientist, 1983. White likened the incident on par with the "Nebraska
man" and "Piltdown Man" incidents. [27] So did I.

Surely it cannot be true that there are only a few fragments of hominid relics
that supports the theory of evolution? Jim Foley of TalkOrigins, the pro-
evolution and anti-creation website makes the following unintentional
admission.

139
 "One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or
on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are
now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly
fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated
teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare." [28] [bold mine]

Is what Foley says a misleading image? OK! Foley may be right and one might
require a bigger box but he does admit that most hominid fossils are but
fragments, consisting of single bones or isolated teeth so how much space would
these take up? Removing the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains would
reduce the "thousands of hominid fossils" quite substantially.

On Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopaedia, there is a page showing a large list of

human evolution fossils. Interestingly, before the list runs the encyclopaedia says
that "Most of the fossils shown are not considered direct ancestors to Homo
sapiens but are closely related to direct ancestors and are therefore important to
the study of the lineage." [29] That really sums up what most of the evidence for
the evolution of man depends upon. Hundreds of fragments belonging not to
human ancestors but extinct apes and monkeys - so why use them? Because they
are thrown into the pot to give the impression that there is "overwhelming
evidence" to support evolution of man when in fact there is not.

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE?
"Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer
engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public
or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no
longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate."
This was what Francisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist and recipient
of the National Medal of Science and the 2010 Templeton Prize recently stated.
[30]

Shall we look at some of this "overwhelming evidence"? Let us first return to

the Time-Life book referenced earlier and read what was said in the captions
beneath each of the fifteen "ancestors of man". From the book "Early Man" we
read the following and discover that the first four "ancestors of man" were
already regarded in the 1960s as being extinct apes while the fifth, Ramapithecus,
was thought by experts at the time to be the oldest of man's direct ancestors.
Later it was determined that Ramapithecus was an extinct ape. So in one swoop
we have eliminated one third of the "overwhelming evidence" that was presented
as proof of the evolutionary rise of man from ape to human in the book.

Before we read what is written in the book you will come across the three
words bandied around by evolutionists in their literature just to confuse matters.
These are "hominoid", "hominid", and "hominin" and they are not
interchangeable. We need to appreciate what they mean.

140
 Hominoid: There are two groups covered by this name. The lesser hominoids
(gibbons and siamangs); and the great hominoids (orangutans, chimpanzees,
bonobos, gorillas, and humans living now or are extinct). The main difference
between monkeys and hominoids is that monkeys almost always have tails, but
hominoids never do. There are also differences between their teeth and the way
they move their arms. Nonhuman hominoids are commonly referred to as apes.

Hominid: This word today does not mean what is meant in the 60's. Then the
word originally meant humans and their closest relatives, but during the last few
decades various revisions have taken place. Today the modern meaning of
"hominid" includes all great apes. A Gorilla for example is a hominid, but it is
also one of the great hominoids.

Hominin: This comprises humans (Homo), and all ancestors of Homo

sapiens back to the split from the apes.

SAHELANTHROPUS TCHADENSIS

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is currently regarded as the key fossil link between

apes and man. However, with only a cranium (skull), five pieces of jaw, and some
teeth to go on who are we to say that it was not an extinct ape having died
whenever it did, in a land where apes abound. The cranium found was so badly
damaged, and very distorted it is hard to imagine anybody thinking that this
primate represented any link between man and ape. What we see is yet another
case of evolutionists clutching at a few bones and conjuring a human ancestor
from it just as the Smithsonian Natural History Museum on-line "Human
Evolution Evidence" is happy to subscribe to:

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the

human family tree. This species lived sometime between 7 and 6
million years ago in West-Central Africa (Chad). Walking upright may
have helped this species survive in diverse habitats, including forests
and grasslands. Although we have only cranial material from
Sahelanthropus, studies so far show this species had a combination of
apelike and humanlike features. Apelike features included a small

141
 brain (even slightly smaller than a chimpanzee's), sloping face, very
prominent brow ridges, and elongated skull. Humanlike features
included small canine teeth, a short middle part of the face, and a
spinal cord opening underneath the skull instead of towards the back
as seen in non-bipedal apes."

Evolutionist propaganda is very good at blinding the reader with scientific

terminology and apparent factual evidence to support their case, but it is really a
illusion and deception on a grand scale.

"Sahelanthropus tchadensis is one of the oldest known species in the human

family tree," says the Smithsonian Museum, but if the reader is not taken in by
what was said, then he or she may question how could it be that from only a
cranial material from Sahelanthropus, which incidentally was very badly
damaged, an ape-like human ancestor could emerge who could also walk upright
because there it was the apparent indication of a spinal cord opening underneath
the skull. That is an amazing conclusion to make!

There is just one problem with this conclusion. It turns out that
Sahelanthropus tchadensis was in fact nothing more than an extinct ape. "They
were initially described as belonging to the oldest known hominid (Brunet et al.
2002), but are now deemed to represent the mortal remains of a Miocene
ape." (On-line Biology Dictionary). So why is it still described on the Smithsonian
website that it was "one of the oldest known species in the human family tree"?

Let us now read what is written in the Time-Life book with regard to the
"March of Progress" and see what is said about each of the fifteen "ancestors of
man" shown. In doing so we shall see how the grand illusion for ape-like
ancestors of man is presented and how deceptive and manipulative evolutionists
can really be. They are masters in the art of sleight of hand, taking a few
fragments of bones and morphing them into an ape-like ancestor of man.

142
 PLIOPITHECUS: One of the earliest proto-apes, Pliopithecus had the look
of a modern gibbon although its arms were not as disproportionately long and
specialized for swinging through the trees. On the basis of its teeth and skull it is
now classed as an ancestor of the gibbon line.

- Comment: It is an extinct ape and has no bearing on the lineage of man.

"Pliopithecus' had a similar size and form to modern gibbons, to which it may
be related, although it is probably not a direct ancestor." [31]

PROCONSUL: Known from numerous fragments adding up to almost

complete skeletons, Proconsul is considered to be a very early ape, the ancestor
of the chimpanzee and perhaps of the gorilla. A contemporary of Pliopithecus, it
is often found with it in the same fossil site.

- Comment: It is an extinct ape and has no bearing on the lineage of man.

"The Ape in the Tree is written in the voice of Alan Walker, whose involvement
with Proconsul began when his graduate supervisor analyzed the tree-climbing
adaptations in the arm and hand of this extinct creature. Today, Proconsul is the
best-known fossil ape in the world. [32] Yes! It is an extinct ape!

DRYOPITHECUS: Though its skeleton is tantalizing incomplete,

Dryopithecus can be fairly described from a few jaws and teeth. First of the
fossil great apes to be discovered, it was widely distributed; remains have been
unearthed throughout Europe, in North India and China.

- Comment: It is an extinct ape and has no bearing on the lineage of man.

Here we go again, "a few jaws and teeth".

143
 The first species of Dryopithecus was discovered at the site of Saint-Gaudens,
Haute-Garonne, France, in 1856. Other dryopithecids have been found in
Hungary, Spain, and China. Dryopithecus was about 60 centimetres (24 in) in
body length, and more closely resembled a monkey than a modern ape.

"Dryopithecus was a distant Miocene forerunner of gorillas and chimpanzees.

A form close to this branching of the dryopithecine stock is represented by the
genus Ramapithecus, distinguished by its more advanced dentition. The
dryopithecines probably inhabited forested areas." [33]

OREOPITHECUS: A likely side branch on man's family tree, Oreopithecus

is believed to have stood around four feet tall and weighed about 80 lbs. Its
teeth and pelvis led scientists to wonder if it could be ancestral to man, but
apparently it became extinct some 8 million years ago.

- Comment: It is an extinct ape and has no bearing on the lineage of man.

"Hürzeler thought the nine-million-old species might have been a human

ancestor. Others concluded it was just an ape that had evolved human-like
characteristic due to convergent evolution. Still others who saw the fossils saw no
human-like traits at all. Some studies have suggested Oreopithecus may have
been similar to modern orangutans. [34]

"It is probable that Oreopithecus represents a specialized side branch of

primate evolution that did not give rise to more advanced forms; it is generally
included in a separate ape family, the Oreopithecidae." [35]

RAMAPITHECUS: The earliest manlike primate found so far,

Ramapithecus is now thought by some experts to be the oldest of man's
ancestors in a direct line. This hominid status is predicated upon a few teeth,
some fragments of jaw and a palate unmistakably human in shape.

- Comment: It is an extinct ape!

Many biology textbooks from the 1970s and 1980s describe Ramapithecus as
the first direct ancestor of modern humans. Here's why: A graduate student by
the name of G. Edward Lewis discovered the first Ramapithecus fossils in 1932 in
northern India. More Ramapithecus fragments were found in various locations.
In 1960, Elwyn Simons pieced together some jawbone fragments and announced
that he'd found the first step in the divergence of human-like animals from ape-
like animals.

But in the late 1960s, two biochemists were analyzing the blood proteins
among various animal species. They concluded that the ape-human divergence
must have occurred some 10 million years ago, but radioactive dating had pegged
the Ramapithecus fossils at 14 million years old. Doubts arose.

144
 "...there would appear to be little evidence to suggest that several different
hominoid species are represented among the Old World dryopithecine fossils...
(Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus). They themselves
nevertheless seem to have been apes morphologically, ecologically, and
behaviorally." [36]

"Finally, in 1976, Pilbeam discovered a complete Ramapithecus jaw, not far

from the initial fossil find, that had a distinctive V shape and thus differed
markedly from the parabolic shape of hominid jaws. He soon repudiated his
belief in Ramapithecus as a human ancestor, and the theory was largely
abandoned by the early 1980s. Ramapithecus fossils subsequently were found to
resemble those of the fossil primate genus Sivapithecus, which is now regarded
as ancestral to the orangutan; the belief also grew that Ramapithecus probably
should be included in the Sivapithecus genus." [37]

In 1982, David Pilbeam published a description of a significant fossil find - a

large part of the face and jaw of a Sivapithecus. The specimen bore many
similarities to the orangutan skull and strengthened the theory that he suggested
in 1976 that Sivapithecus was closely related to orangutans. Today, scientists
believe Ramapithecus may have been a distant ancestor to the orangutan and not
man.

MORE APES?
We now come to number six in the Time-Life "March of Progress" picture. This
is Australapithecus. The books says:

AUSTRALAPITHECUS: Ramapithecus and this early form of

Australopithecus, the first certain hominid, are separated by a gap of nine
million years. In this time, the prehumans made great advances-they walked
upright, lived on the ground and many have used stones in their defense.

- Comment: The Australapithecus Group are apes with no bearing on the

lineage of man.

Described by the book as "the first certain hominid" Australapithecus

(Southern Ape) has had a chequered history. Raymond Dart discovered Tatung
Child, Robert Broom found fossils of a species which Broom named

145
 Paranthropus (which would now be recognised as Paranthropus robustus) and
Mary Leakey discovered Paranthropus boisei (renamed Australopithecus boisei).
Then in 1974 Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) was found by Donald Johanson
and T. D. White and was portrayed to the whole world as proof of a direct
ancestor of man. They were all later placed into the Australapithecus group.

The evolution tree on display at the Smithstonian Museum (the David H. Koch
Hall of Human Origins) shows the Australapithecus group on a separate branch
of a tree with no links to any ancestry of man. What has happened? The answer is
simple. The entire group are today regarded as apes.

The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the
subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"- Lucy
being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus
afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would
have to be removed from the human family tree. Now it has!

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the
human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St
W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this
destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of
man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus
and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct
ancestors are still waiting to be discovered." [38]

"At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything
distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... They were
surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and
morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a

146
 significant amount of time in the trees." [39]

MORE ON LUCY

Perhaps the most famous icon of human evolution in modern times may now
have to be quietly discarded. For over the last thirty years, the supposedly 3.2
million year old Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as 'Lucy' has been
boldly proclaimed as the ancestor of all humanity in magazines, television shows,
books, newspapers, and museums. Now, she's joins the ranks of other discarded
human ancestors, just like Piltdown Man. The final death knell came by a study
published in 2007 by Tel Aviv University anthropologists who eliminated the
possibility that Lucy and her kind were mankind's ape ancestor. They determined
that Lucy's mandibular ramus, or lower jaw bone, not only appears in
Australopithecus robustus, but closely resembles that of a gorilla. This what they
have to say.

"Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory
that "Lucy" - the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus
afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago - is the last ancestor
common to humans and another branch of the great apes family
known as the "Robust hominids. .. Rak and colleagues studied 146
mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern
humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the
"ramus element" of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull
is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the
possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man's direct ancestors.
" [40][bold mine]

This study follows up others such as that of Jeremy Cherfas published in New
Scientist in 1982 who said that Lucy's ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a
gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and
concluded that the differences between her and human beings are
"unmistakable" [41]

Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy

at the University of Southern California Medical School, subjected
australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis. He concluded, "The
australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably
removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism, possibly from a
place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from
any place in the direct human lineage." [42]

BIPEDALITY MISCONCEPTIONS

147
 Before proceeding further, while researching this book I came a cross an
evolutionist website "Evolution Education Resource Centre" put together by a
"concerned citizen" (Ken Harding) for the simple reason, he says of countering
misinformation and a general lack of knowledge. Full marks for effort but a look
at one of his articles under the heading "You Figure it Out", it is clear that he
himself provides "misinformation" because he not acquainted with the facts.

Harding, no relation to me, makes the following comment regarding Lucy

(Australopithecus afarensis).

"The Afarensis has a brain of about 415 cc, slightly larger than the
chimp. They are obviously both primates, and closely related. But the
biggest difference, the difference that absolutely excludes Afarensis, or
Lucy (as she is most commonly known) from being a version of
chimpanzee, is that she walked upright on two legs (fully bipedal) with
a modern-looking knee. The chimp has no such ability, and can only
sustain partial bipedal locomotion for a few seconds at a time, due to a
knee that cannot straighten out. Chimpanzees are not bipedal - they are
quadrupeds. Lucy's kind walked the earth 3 to 4 million years
ago." [43]

So Ken agrees that both skulls Lucy and a chimpanzee resemble each other but
his main criteria, obviously gleaned from evolutionary sources is that the
difference that absolutely excludes Afarensis, or Lucy from being a version of
chimpanzee, is that she walked upright on two legs. How wrong can you be? The
assumption that two footed mobility establishes human kinship is groundless.
Gorillas occasionally walk bipedally; Tanzanian chimpanzees are seen standing
on two legs when gathering fruit from small trees; and Zaire's pygmy chimpanzee
walks upright so often that it has been dubbed "a living link."

Writing about Lucy, The Smithsonian magazine, March 2010 said, "At 3.2
million years old, Lucy was remarkably primitive, with a brain and body about
the size of a chimpanzee's. But her ankle, knee and pelvis showed that she walked
upright like us. This meant Lucy was a hominid-only humans and our close
relatives in the human family habitually walk upright on the ground."

The Smithsonian interpretation is not based upon solid evidence and is

disputed vigorously in a number of quarters. For example, leading
paleonanthropolgists Adrienne Zihlman and Vincent Sarich published a scathing
scientific criticism concerning Lucy being an ancestor of man because it was
believed that she walked upright.

"In their article Zihlman and Sarich pointed out the curved finger
bones that suggested life swinging in the trees, not standing upright
scanning the African plains. They pointed out numerous chimpanzee-

148
 like features in Lucy, and even showed a picture of Lucy's skeleton
superimposed on the living rain forest or pigmy chimpanzee, Pan
paniscus, also called bonobo. A troop of these chimps lives in a
fabulous habitat in the San Diego Zoo, and they can occasionally be
seen walking upright, just as Lucy ever could. But they are obviously
chimpanzees, and not ape-to-man links. No one would become famous,
of course, by claiming to find fossil chimpanzees bones in Africa - and
Lucy appears to be nothing more." [44]

Dr. Jane Goodall Research Scientist & Artist who spent some time with Dr.
George Pournelle of the San Diego Zoo said, "Bonobos share 99 per cent of their
DNA with humans, more than any other primate, and bonobos are much nearer
to us in physiognomy than are chimpanzees. Unlike chimps, bonobos have broad
shoulders and torsos that are proportioned much like humans. Bonobos can and
often do walk upright with a human-like gait." [45]

As a side note, the suggestion that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99 per cent
of their DNA with humans is another myth promoted by evolutionists. As a result
of advances in genetics this so called fact of evolution has been found to be
completely erroneous and misleading. However, it is beyond the remit of the
present work to discuss this, so I have written another book that goes into this in
considerable detail. It is called EVOLUTION'S Coup de Grâce available from
Amazon. It is a study that shows how man's almost hairless condition and his

149
 remarkable penis proves that there could never have been an ape-like common
ancestor.

The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History under the heading "Genetics",

says that no remains of the last common ancestor between humans and
chimpanzees have been identified.

"Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are

classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate
evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behaviour, our
close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA
evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are
chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we
did not evolve directly from any primates living today." Then in a
picture the same article says, "The Last common ancestor of humans
and chimpanzees lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. We do yet
not have its remains." [46]

To recap, according to the Smithsonian Museum, there are no remains of the

supposed common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees found and according to
all scientific journals humans did not evolve directly from any primates living
today. So although bonobos are apes that can walk like humans, they are not
considered ancestors of man although according to evolutionary doctrine, "only
humans and our close relatives in the human family habitually walk upright on
the ground". Cyclic reasoning at its best. You work that one out if you can.

Do you not find it odd that every time an anthropologist finds a few fossil
bones they are automatically considered to belong to an ancestor of man in some

150
 way? So while we see in the "March of Progress" a diagram of our human
ancestors going back almost six million years, where are all the fossils of
chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors? Why does every bone fragment discovered
turn out to be a human ancestor? The answer is quite simple. Nobody becomes
famous if the bone fragment is described as that of an extinct ape.

Take away the veneer of evolutionist prejudices and the facts speak for
themselves. Most if not all the bone fragments reported really belong to extinct
apes. However, if this was made generally known then this would nullify the
human family tree of ape-man to human ancestry, the very foundation upon
which evolutionists of man is based. There is too much at stake, financial rewards
and reputations, to allow this embarrassing fact to become known. Hence, when
we read about Lucy as having a tiny skull, a head shaped like an ape, a brain case
the size of a chimpanzee (450 cc) and that she "was surprisingly short
legged" [47], one has to ask how it is possible that evolutionary scientists, with
great pomp and ceremony, can declare her to be a human ancestor! This is sheer
nonsense!

The truth of the matter is, one cannot rely on only one or two characters, such
as cranial capacity or an erect posture as evidence that the fossil remains of a
particular ape-like individual belong to a human ancestors. Professor Tobias of
the University of Witwatersand, Johannesburg and Dr Napier of the Royal Free
Hospital School University of London made a welcome although perhaps an
unintentional admission. Writing in Nature 4th April 1964 they said:

"It has long been recognised that as more and more discoveries were made, it
would become necessary to revise the diagnosis of the human Homo. In
particular, it has become clear that it is impossible to rely on only one
or two characters, such as cranial capacity or an erect posture, as the
necessary criteria for membership of the genus." [bold mine]

At last common sense prevails. One cannot consider a hominid to be classed as

a human ancestor just because it may have stood upright. Unfortunately, the
words of Tobias and those of his colleagues fall on deaf ears and today this
erroneous criteria of Bipedality remains the hallmark for determining if an
extinct ape is considered an ape or an ancestor of man. In theory, based on that
criteria a living ape such as the bonobo should be classified an ancestor of man,
but no evolutionist would dare to put their reputations on the line and say it is?
That would be crazy and they know it.

We now come to the next "ancestor of man" in the "March of Progress" picture,
namely Paranthropus. The books says:

PARANTHROPUS: Though he stood erect and had hominid features,

Paranthropus represents an evolutionary dead end in man's ancestry. A
vegetarian, to judge from his big jaws and grinding teeth, he competed with
advanced australopithecines, which may have hastened his extinction.

151
 - Comment: He is an extinct ape and has no bearing on the lineage of man.
What follows it the real story behind the discovery.

As described in the previous chapter Paranthropus boisei, alias

Australopithecus Paranthropus, alias Zinjanthropus and nicknamed "Nutcracker
Man" was discovered by Mary Leakey in 1959. What was not described in the
reports at the time were the circumstances by which the discovery of the jawbone
and skull cranium was made. They were both fragmented and lay twenty-five feet
apart from each other.

When the skull was assembled it looked extremely like an ape. However,
because some chipped stones that were interpreted as being those of rudimentary
tools were unearthed nearby as well, the Leakeys decided that the jawbone and
the remainder of the skull parts went together and that the creature had to have
been half-human/half-ape - an evolutionary ancestor of man who used those
tools. The Leakeys had conveniently forgotten the earlier find of the modern
human skeleton that had been discovered just above where the Zinj cranium had
been found.

In December 1913 a workman had found a bone protruding from one of the
oldest layers of the Olduvai Gorge. It was at a level where extinct animals from
the Pleistocene had been found. He started to excavate. It just so happened that
on the site was a naturalist by the name of Hans Reck who had studied at the
University College London. The workman told the naturalist about his find and
immediately Reck took over and directed the excavation.

The workers used hammers and chisels to excavate a human skeleton with
modern anatomy that was embedded in a block of sedimentary rock. Reck
examined the surrounding rocks carefully, but found no sign of disturbance that
could indicate a burial at some later data. Hence, he concluded that the skeleton
had laid their for thousands of years. Reck took the skull back to Berlin in March
1914, and published an article in which he speculated that the skeleton was of a
man from 150,000 years ago, far earlier than had been previously considered for
the origin of man. The announcement caused a considerable stir, although many
people dismissed Reck's claims, saying it must be a recent burial.

Louis Leakey examined the location where Reck had found the skeleton, and
quickly came to accept Reck's estimate of its age. Then Leakey, Reck and Arthur
Hopwood, another paleontologist, drafted a letter to Nature that stated that the
question of the age of Olduvai Man was settled. He was nearly half a million years
old, and Leakey made a quick return trip to Nairobi to dispatch this and other
letters announcing the find. Note the age of 500,000 years old because later,
Mary Leakey would, decades later, find "Nutcracker Man" that would be declared
to be 600,000 years old, and an apelike ancestor of man.

When Louis and Mary Leakey first announced their "Nutcracker Man" find,
they declared that it was the earliest man ever discovered, and was 600,000
years old. Leakey also announced that he had found "hand bones" not far away

152
 which were curved in an odd way, clearly demonstrating the transitional
nature of his find. With what we have seen so far, the finding of a cranium in bits,
a jawbone twenty-five feet away, and a modern human skeleton above, one can
hardly call this scientific objectivity. Was there a motive behind the declaration?

It just so happened that the find of Nutcracker man came just as funds from
the Leakey's benefactor, Mr. Charles Boise, had run out. Louis needed a new
sponsor with deep pockets and urgently and he was not to be disappointed. The
National Geographic Society stepped in. In her book "Olduvai Gorge" Mary
wrote, "Following the discovery of the cranium of Australopithecus
(Zinjanthropus) boisei in 1959 funds made available to us by the National
Geographic Society, Washington D.C., enabled systematic excavations to be
carried out over a period of two and half years". The National Geographic Society
has funded the Leakey family ever since.

The discovery of Paranthropus boisei, alias Australopithecus Paranthropus,

alias Zinjanthropus, alias "Nutcracker Man" and the publicity that it had received
in the National Geographic Magazine and the world press enabled it to be added
to the Time-Life "Progress of Man" book but already by then it had been
determined that it was an evolutionary dead end, which is basically what it was.

The New Scientist journal of 15th October 1959, suspected that Zinjanthropus
was not an ancestor of man. "This specialisation in Paranthropus and
Zinjanthropus leads one to suspect that they represent a side branch of the
evolutionary tree which led eventually to Homo Sapiens". The same magazine on
27th February 1975 confirmed this assessment by saying, "The fact that Homo
Habilis was also 1.75 million years old meant that Zinjanthropus had to be
pushed out of the direct lineage of man and shunted into a side branch leading to
extinction".

153
 Having declared with banners waving that Zinjanthropus was an ancestor of
man for a decade or more, it was now pronounced that it was a side-branch of
evolution that led to extinction. No apologies for misleading the public. Just
sweep it under the carpet thus avoiding embarrassing questions concerning it. As
the reader will discover, this happens a lot when describing the evolution of man.
There is more that gives rise for concern.

Zinjanthropus was called Nutcracker man because of its powerful jaw thought
to have evolved because it could crush tough nuts easily. This interpretation has
since been shown to be wrong and that Zinjanthropus was more akin to an
extinct grass-eating baboon. And guess what? It was Meave Leakey, the
daughter-in-law of Mary and Louis Leakey who spilled the beans.

In 2011 Thure E. Cerling of the University of Utah and colleagues, published a

study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of their work with
the carbon in the enamel of 24 teeth from 22 Paranthropus individuals. The
report makes an important admission.

"It turns out that the early human known as Paranthropus boisei did
not eat nuts but dined more heavily on grasses than any other human
ancestor or human relative studied to date. Only an extinct species of
grass-eating baboon ate more". One of the co-authors of the paper was
Meave Leakey, the daughter-in-law of Mary and Louis Leakey. [48]

If there were any doubts that Nutcracker Man was not an ancestor of man, in
2009 Richard Leakey gave an interview with Archaeology Magazine in which he

154
 confirmed that Zinjanthropus was not an ancestor of man.

"The name of the genus "Zinjanthropus" has since been dropped...

Whatever genus the fossil is assigned to, it is no longer believed to be a
direct ancestor of modern humans, but one of a number of hominid
species that lived in Africa millions of years ago." [49]

Likewise, Mary said "Scientists agree that "Zinj" is on an evolutionary side

branch - not a direct human ancestor; however, the 1.75-million-year-old
specimen was the first of his species ever found, and at the time of his discovery,
the oldest hominid." [50]

What this means is that for decades amid widespread publicity which said that
Zinjanthropus was an ape-like direct ancestor of man, years later he is recognised
as being nothing more than an extinct ape, even by those who found him. You
will find this happening a lot as we delve into the candidates for the supposed
evolution of man.

It is interesting to note too that the human family tree on display at the
Smithsonian Museum (the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins) shows the
Paranthropus in its own "Panthropus Group" in which there is three members
shown namely Paranthropus Boisei, Paranthropus Robustus, and Paranthropus
Aethiopicus. Like the Australopithecus group this is a separate branch of a tree
with no links to any ancestry of man. The skulls clearly show that they resembled
apes so one has to ask on what basis can they be defined as ancestors of man?
There can be none.

ADVANCED AUSTRALAPITHECUS: Distinguished from the early

155
 Australopithecines by his increased cranial capacity, advanced
Australopithecines was a contemporary of Paranthropus. Primitive tools have
been found with both, but whether one or the other or both produced them
remains unsettled.

- Comment: Advanced Australapithecus are apes which have no bearing on

the lineage of man.

Richard Leakey said in Nature in 1971, "This Australopithecine material

suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The
Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the 'knuckle-walker'
condition, not unlike the extant African apes." [55]

Similarly, Matt Cartmill writing in American Scientist in 1986 put the final nail
in the coffin for the Australopithecines.

"At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything
distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behaviour. ...
[T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition,
limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they
may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the
trees." [56]

CHASING AFTER WIND

We finish this chapter having examined what was considered evidence for the
evolution of man during the 1960's. What did we discover? We learned that the
first eight out of the fifteen "proofs" in the Time-Life "March of Progress" were in
fact extinct apes and there is nothing to suggest that they were anything but apes.
They certainly were not ancestors of man from an evolutionary point of view.

Why should we be surprised at this? The fossil remains were mostly

fragmentary consisting of the odd cranium here and there, a crushed skull piece
pieced together, jawbones and miscellaneous teeth. In other words, they were
open to speculative interpretation and wishful thinking on behalf evolutionists
who were desperate to find missing links to Homo Sapiens. Furthermore, these
fossil relics were found in places where apes flourish or have flourished in the
past so it really beggers belief that to describe them as being anything else other
than extinct apes is really pushing it. But that is what the evolutionist scientists
did and they pushed it hard to the gullible public, who took the bait - hook, line
and sinker. And they still do.

156
 Even a cursory review of this subject demonstrates that decades of scientific
study have resulted in little more than assumptions, disagreements and
widespread confusion. Take a look at this report from Nature of 8th August 2012
under the heading "FOSSILS POINT TO A BIG FAMILY FOR HUMAN
ANCESTORS". The sub-heading says, "Jaw structures suggest that at least three
Homo species once roamed the African plains". It concerns three fossils - two
lower jaws and a juvenile's lower face - that were found in a desert area called
Koobi Fora in northern Kenya. The team that pulled them out of the ground was
led by Meave Leakey, the wife of Richard Leakey.

Confusion reigns supreme! Apparently there are as many as four Homo species
(H. rudolfensis, H. habilis, H. erectus and a lower-jaw specimen, dubbed KNM-
ER 1802 yet not classified), coexisting in one period of evolutionary history. Tim
White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that
Leakey and her colleagues are putting the cart before the horse. He asks:

"How can practitioners in this field possibly expect to be able to

accurately identify fossil species based upon a few teeth, jaws and lower
faces in light of what we know about the great variation found among
different individuals in a single living species?" [57]

I ask the same question for all fossil fragments that have been used to support
the evolutionary origins of man. How can evolutionists expect to be able to
accurately identify fossil species based upon a few fossil fragments in light of
what we know about the great variation found among different individuals in a
single living species? Any interpretation is really pure speculation, not science. It
is little wonder that if we really take a look at the theory of evolution with an open

157
 mind we find a scene of utter chaos and confusion.

David Perlman, in his book, Fossils From Ethiopia May Be Earliest Human
Ancestor published in 2001 writes:

"The world of paleoanthropology is highly contentious, and scientists

have been trying for many decades to sort out the murky ancestry of
today's human race by comparing thousands of fossil bones and skulls.
But no evidence is certain and no lineages are clear." [58]
[bold mine]

Below I quote a few comments by paleoanthropologists who have recently

voiced their concerns about the lack of evidence that supports their theories.

A comment from Nature 6th October 2011 is most revealing.

"We have all see the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more
human. We know that as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh
[tidy, but sheer nonsense]. Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human
evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates. ... almost
every time someone claims to have found a new species of hominin,
someone else refutes it. The species is said to be either a member of
Homo sapiens, but pathological, or an ape." [59]

Bernard Wood who is Professor of Human Origins and Professor of Human

Evolutionary Anatomy at The George Washington University and Adjunct Senior
Scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution
makes a significant admission in 1992.

"It is remarkable that the taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of

the earliest known representatives of our own genus, Homo, remain
obscure. Advances in techniques for absolute dating and reassessments
of the fossils themselves have rendered untenable a simple unilineal
model of human evolution, in which Homo habilis succeeded the
australopithecines and then evolved via H. erectus into H. sapiens - but
no clear alternative consensus has yet emerged." [60]

Richard Leakey during a PBS documentary in 1990 made the following

admission.

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say

158
 that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been
nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man,
including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further
pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an
abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving." [61]

Ten years earlier, in 1981, Richard Leaky had already described in his book
"The Making of Mankind" his concerns about the lack of evidence for the present
gaps in the evidence.

"Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern

humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a
common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat
incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank
for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found
over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the
evidence." [62]

Clearly, by 1990 nothing had changed. So for a hundred years or more

paleontologists have been looking for the holy grail, the missing link or the
evolutionary ancestors of man from ape-like creatures and what did they find.
Nothing! It appears that during that time they have been chasing after wind
because as we have seen, none of the evidence discussed herein suggests that
man has evolved from apes. All we have seen are the finding of the fragmentary
remains of extinct apes, in places where they had once flourished. Surprise!
Surprise! Can we say as we get closer to our own times that the evidence is any
better? Do archaic humans prove the origins of man was the result of evolution?
That question will be answered in the next chapter.

I leave this chapter with the words of Dr William White Howells (1908-2005)
the very person who wrote the Time-Life book Early Man in which the "March of
Progress" was published. In an earlier work called "Mankind So Far" published
in 1947 he wrote regarding fossil evidence for human evolution the following:

"What actually did happen can be made out only from the fossils
themselves. These are often mere scraps, but luckily they are most apt
to be parts of the skull or teeth. A great legend has grown up to plague
both paleontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can
take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his
hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper
and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped
the Terriary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would
make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts, and it has led to a
certain amount of skepticism in the lay mind regarding the restoration

159
 of early man which have been made. But it is not quite true." [63]

Howells believed that it was quite possible to take a tooth or small bone and
from it draw a whole animal. Do you agree with him? After what you have read
here, I wonder if you can say with hand on heart that the evidence I have
presented here in evolutionists own words has laid to rest the skepticism
described by Howells in 1947. Or would you agree that "anthropologists would
make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts". Before you decide there is more
that you should know. For the origins of man through evolution things go from
bad to worse.

160
 Chapter 7
ANCESTORS, APES OR HUMANS?

"There are 193 species of monkeys and apes, 192 of them are covered with hair.
The exception is a naked ape self-named Homo sapiens."
Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape"

In the previous chapters I examined what was believed to be the evolution of

man as understood and presented in the 1960's. I used the Time-Life's "March of
Progress" iconic illustration as a guide as it had been written by one of the
foremost anthropologists of the day, namely Francis Clark Howell who had
impeccable credentials. From this we examined the first six evolutionary
ancestors of man which appeared to show evidence that man had evolved from
apes or ape-like hominids. But as we saw, they had nothing to do with the
evolution of man. Five had been simply extinct apes that should not have been
shown at all in the illustration, while the other, also and extinct ape, had once
been considered a direct link to man, but which was proven to not have been the
case.

To his credit Howell did try to explain the significance of what he had
presented and admitted that many of the figures shown here had been "built up
from far fewer fragments - a jaw, some teeth perhaps, as indicated by the white

161
 highlights - and thus are products of educated guessing." But would the
average reader have noticed this or realised the significance of what he said. It
was how the evolution of man was presented in the book's pictures that would
have the greatest impact on popular imagination, and it certainly did. Anybody
thinking about evolution of man will immediately visualise the iconic image of
the "March of Progress". Whether by intent or by accident, this illustration has
done more to "sell" the evolution theory than anything else since.

Just to recap, the first four characters shown in the evolutionary procession
are described in the book as proto-apes. Do you know what the word "proto-
apes" means? It is a made up word not generally found in dictionaries. The first
part "proto" means first, foremost or original, and as for apes, well that is easy - a
tailless primate. Hence, we are talking about the first apes. What are these doing
in the "March of Progress"? They have nothing to do with the evolution of man.

The only explanation for Pliopithecus, Proconsul, Dryopethecus and

Oreopithecus being in the "March of Progress" can only be to add to the illusion
that what was being presented was proof that man had evolved. It is only when
you take the trouble to read the text beneath each picture that the reader may
grasp that they are apes, nothing more nothing less. However, their very presence
is highly misleading because it suggests that what is shown is evidence for man's
apelike ancestors when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The next ape-man in the procession was Ramapithecus. In the 1960's he was
indeed regarded as an ancestor of man as the Encyclopedia Britannica notes,
"For a time in the 1960s and 70s Ramapithecus was thought to be the first direct
ancestor of modern humans". [1] However, in 1976, David Pilbeam found a
complete Ramapithecus jaw, which clearly showed an apelike design. Today,
scientists believe Ramapithecus to be an extinct ape who may have been a distant
ancestor to the orang-utan. We can scrub another ancestor of man from the list.

162
 Finally, we came to the australopithecines and what a mess that turned out to
be. From the time of Dart's announcement of his find of Australopithecus
africanus (Southern Ape), this creature has generated considerable controversy.
Fossils of reportedly two types australopithecines have been unearthed since
Dart's discovery in 1924 of the fossilised skull of a child, Taungs baby as he called
it and claimed that it was the missing link as described in his book "Adventures
with the Missing Link". These are the robust australopithecines
(Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei {Zinjanthropus}) and the
graceful australopthecines (Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus
afarensis {Lucy}).

The term gracile and robust implies substantial anatomical differences

between the two forms. One small and delicately built, the other bigger and more
massive. However the difference between the two forms are mainly in the dental
and facial adaptations to chewing. The robust forms have bigger grinding teeth,
more robust jaws and more bulky chewing muscles and muscle attachments.

By the 1960's the consensus among evolutionists was that the

australopithecines were intermediate between man and the apes. In other words
this creature was on a direct evolutionary line between man and the ancestor of
apes. However, a person who was unbiased would look at the australopithecine
evidence presented and wonder how anyone could think that they could be
anything else but extinct apes.

The fact of the matter is that all the Australopithecus species resemble the apes
of today. Some have cranial capacities that are the same or smaller than the
chimpanzees of our day. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which
they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees, and their feet are built for
grasping to hold onto branches. Many other characteristics such as the details in
their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular
structure, their long arms, and their short legs-constitute evidence that these
creatures were no different from today's ape. As for the robust forms such as
Australopithecus afarensis their skulls placed side by side with that of a gorilla
hardly looks any different.

163
 Australopithecines only really achieved their "human ancestor" status based
upon an assumption that for apes to evolve into man, they would have had to
walk first. Hence, it was claimed that the australopithecines had walked upright
so consequently they must have been human ancestors. This is not science this is
speculation, otherwise how does one explain that bonobos often walk but is not
considered an ancestor of man. Anyway, leading paleontologist Richard Leakey
challenged the claim that australopithecines could walk by asserting that more
complete remains of the forelimbs and hind limbs of this creature had been
found and this indicated that this creature had not walked upright at all.

Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-

renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman (1904 -
1993) and professor Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk
upright in a human manner. Lord Solly Zuckerman served as secretary of the
London Zoological Society from 1955-77 and as its President from 1977-84.
Professor Charles Oxnar is Senior Honorary Research Fellow at the University of
Western Australia. Although they are evolutionists they disagreed with their
colleagues about the ability for australopithecines to walk. Having studied the
bones of these fossils for a period of fifteen years thanks to grants from the
British government they and a team of five specialists reached the conclusion
that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely
not bipedal. [2]

Evolutionist Jim Foley of TalkOrigins says that "Oxnard's results were based
on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and
often poorly preserved." But with the exception of Lucy that had not been
discovered when Oxnard carried out his tests, all australopithecine fossils
existing at the time were fragmentary and poorly preserved. Yet the evolutionist
lobby believe they have the right to say, based on their interpretation of these
bone fragments, that these fragments indicated that they were bipedal, while
anatomists from a different science discipline (not creationists) say the opposite

164
 and therefore are wrong. Here we see evolutionist double standards and bias at
its best. Let us take a closer look at Australopithecus afarensis for example to see
if evolutionists like Foley are justified by what they say.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS
When researching this hominid, the fossil evidence was rather confusing.
Australopithecus afarensis is described as being slenderly built, being an extinct
hominid that lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. The most famous fossil
is the partial skeleton named Lucy (3.2 million years old) found by Donald
Johanson and colleagues, who, in celebration of their find, repeatedly played the
Beatles' song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Pictures of Lucy show her walking
but as we have seen this is an assumption and not proven science.

Johanson admitted that Lucy had curved finger bones and that she was
probably at home in trees. As noted in a previous chapter Zihlman and Sarich
pointed out, besides the curved finger bones that suggested life swinging in the
trees, numerous chimpanzee-like features and even showed a picture of Lucy's
skeleton superimposed on the living bonobo ape. Perhaps the latest discovery of
an Australopithecus afarensis may shed light on the matter and set matters right
one way or another.

In 2000 the fossilised skull and other skeletal remains of a three-year-old

Australopithecus afarensis female whose bones were first found in Dikika,
Ethiopia and recovered over the following years.

Known as Salem it is interesting to note what was said about the find in Nature

165
 20th September 2006. First, the authors Zeresenay Alemseged, Fred Spoor,
William H. Kimbel, René Bobe, Denis Geraads, Denné Reed and Jonathan G.
Wynn made the following admission:

"Understanding changes in ontogenetic development is central to the

study of human evolution. With the exception of Neanderthals, the
growth patterns of fossil hominins have not been studied
comprehensively because the fossil record currently lacks
specimens that document both cranial and postcranial
development at young ontogenetic stages." [3] [bold mine]

So we have reached the year 2006 and what do we find? After about one-
hundred and twenty years of evolution studies, according the aforementioned
report, the fossil record currently lacks specimens that document both cranial
(skull) and post cranial (part of the skeleton apart from the skull development)
development at young ontongenetic (development of an individual organism
from embryo to adult). Once again we find that the overwhelming evidence to
support the evolution of man through apelike ancestors which by its very nature
is ontongenic is lacking. What else did the report say?

"Here we describe a well-preserved 3.3-million-year-old juvenile

partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis discovered in the Dikika
research area of Ethiopia. The skull of the approximately three-year-
old presumed female shows that most features diagnostic of the species
are evident even at this early stage of development. The find includes
many previously unknown skeletal elements from the Pliocene
hominin record, including a hyoid bone that has a typical
African ape morphology." [4] [Bold mine]

The hyoid bone is a horseshoe-shaped bone situated in the anterior midline of

the neck between the chin and the thyroid cartilage and as the report said it was
the three year old juvenile had the typical morphology (the study of the form or
shape) of an ape not a human.

Finally, the report said, "The foot and other evidence from the lower limb
provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion, but the gorilla-like scapula and
long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of
arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire." [5]

From this one may concede that in this particular australopithecine may have
been able to walk (so can bonobos) but then the authors say that the gorilla-like
scapula (shoulder blade) and long and curved manual phalanges (the bones in
the toes) raises new questions of arboreal (locomotion of animals in trees)
behaviour in this creature's locomotor repertoire. In other words, Salem

166
 evidently could walk but had the curved phalanges of primates that are found
in tree climbing primates including bonobos. [6]

Quite frankly, it does not matter if any of the australopithecines walked

upright or not, because as we have already seen bonobos often walk too as well as
climb trees, yet they are considered modern day apes not ancestors of man. The
claim that australopithecines walked upright is largely based on the appearance
of their legs and hip bones, and very few of these have been found except in Lucy,
but common to other australopithecines she had long forearms and short hind
legs.

Australopithecines also have curved fingers and long curved toes. Curved
fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognised as having no other
purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. However, this mode
is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living
nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this
regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the
other.

The important thing to appreciate is that all australopithecines resembled apes

more than they did humans. One can say that modern apes resemble humans
today too but they are not human by any sense of the imagination. Today, the
australopithecines are shown as an isolated and extinct branch in the tree of
evolution as depicted in recent charts such as the one on display at the
Smithsonian Museum. Interestingly, to cover all options the museum makes the
comment that the "Species in the group [Australopicus Group] of early humans
walked upright on a regular basis, but they still climbed trees too." Isn't that what
bonobos do today?

167
 To cut a long and messy story short, there is no evidence of a link between the
Australopicus Group and the Homo group where we (homo sapiens) are
positioned. Professor Charles Oxnard could rightly say, "The australopithecines
known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai
and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any
closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct
human lineage." [7] There is nothing to suggest that australopithecine are
anything but apes.

AND SO THE SHOW GOES ON

You can really take what evolutionists claim with a pinch of salt. The press
which is pro-evolution will announce the news of another new hominid fossil that
proves that man had evolved from apelike ancestors. Then a few years later
another publication, as we have seen in a previous chapter, declares that the
fossil was not what it appeared to be. Little wonder then that evolutionists, and
everybody else for that matter, cannot see the wood for the trees. Claim, counter
claim is all part of the evolution show, but at the end of the day, it is the public
that gets fooled while evolutionist paleontologists clutch at any straw they can
find to attempt to prove their theory. It was true in Darwin's day as it is today.

THE TOUMAI SKULL

Let us now look at the case of the "Toumai skull". This skull were discovered in
the Djurab Desert of Chad by a team of four led by Michel Brunet; three
Chadians, Adoum Mahamat, Djimdoumalbaye Ahounta and Gongdibé Fanoné,
and Frenchman, Alain Beauvilain. What was discovered were a relatively small
cranium known as Toumaï ("hope of life" in the local Dazaga language of Chad in
central Africa), five pieces of jaw, and some teeth - and they were found in three
different locations between July 2001 to March 2002 at three sites (TM 247, TM
266 (which yielded most of the material), and TM 292). Note the three different
locations where the fossil fragments were discovered and how few they were. For
example, only fragments relating to the skull or cranium were recovered. No
body parts of any kind were found.

168
 Concerning the Toumai skull BBC News said, "The Toumaï specimen was
unearthed in Chad in 2002 to international acclaim" [8] but then most ape-man
fossils are. The Natural History Museum declared under the heading "TOUMAI
SKULL: IS IT MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR?", followed by the sub-
heading "New fossil finds and analysis of the 'Toumai' skull, discovered in Chad
in 2002, strongly suggest it was closer to humans than to apes." [bold
mine] It is almost beyond belief that from these few scattered fragments that
evolutionists could claim that we were looking at the remains of a primate that
was more akin to humans than apes.

Walking upright is still important in the evolution model as an evolutionary

step to man. "Also the positioning of the foramen magnum - the opening at the
base of the skull where the spinal cord enters - is similar to humans but differs
from apes. This suggests Toumai walked upright." [9] However, there was severe
post mortem distortion of the cranium that occurred after the death of the
individual made it difficult to determine the shape and location of the foramen
magnum with certainty. Also, the brain case was similar in volume to that of
extant chimpanzees.

NPR News station under the heading "TOUMAI THE HUMAN

ANCESTOR reported that "Anthropologists say it belongs to a previously
unknown species of ape that lived six or seven million years ago. Its face looks
remarkably modern, suggesting that perhaps this species - not others sitting in
museum drawers - eventually evolved into modern humans." Daniel Lieberman,
an anthropologist at Harvard University, said "This is probably one of the most
important paleontological discoveries in last 100 years. This is going to
fundamentally change how we think about human evolution". [10] What a lot of
beloney! Other scientists disagreed with evolutionist colleagues and were
prepared to say so.

On October 10, 2002, an international team headed by Milford Wolpoff

(University of Michigan) wrote a letter to Nature challenging the fact that

169
 "Toumaï" was a hominid. They claimed that the features in the teeth, face and
skull used by Burnet in calling "Toumaï" a hominid are not unique to hominids
but can be found in apes as well. They suggested that "Toumaï" might be an
ancestral female gorilla. [11]

The debate continued and in 2005 the journal Nature reported that new teeth
and jaw specimens from the Toros-Menalla site in Chad and a digital
representation of Toumaï's head, completely confirmed that Toumaï was not a
chimp, or a gorilla, but a true hominid. [12] That seemed to be that but the team
at the University of Michigan responded quickly. "EARLIEST HOMINID:
NOT A HOMININ AT ALL?" said the press letter 26th June 2006.

"The earliest known hominid fossil, which dates to about 7 million

years ago, is actually some kind of ape, according to an international
team of researchers led by the University of Michigan. The finding,
they say, suggests scientists should consider that we didn't
actually descend from apes resembling chimpanzees, which
are considered our closest relatives." [bold mine]

Milford Wolpoff and colleagues had examined images and the original paper
published on the discovery of the Toumaï cranium (TM 266), as well as a
computer reconstruction of the skull. Two other colleagues were actually able to
examine the skull, Wolpoff said, in addition to the images and the computer
reconstruction. The research team concluded that the cranium did not sit atop
the spine but in front of it, indicating the creature walked on all fours like an ape.

What are we to make of all this squabbling amongst evolutionists? Imagine

how hard it must be for them, having spent decades of searching and with their
professional careers (and funding) on the line only to show for their troubles a
partial cranium here, a few teeth there and perhaps a jawbone or femur to add to
the mix. What happens if after announcing that you have found the missing link
only to find a few years later somebody nullifies your discovery with a discovery
of their own and claim the same. And then at the end of the day what do they
really find in their hands but a few bone fragments that could easily be
interpreted as coming from an extinct ape. Ouch! It is not the sort of thing one
would want to admit under the circumstances, and so the evolutionist
propaganda show goes on. Meanwhile the public remains unaware of the
conflicts that are taking place behind the scenes or just how fragile the
foundations upon which the origins of man as told by evolutionist propaganda
really is.

HOMO ERECTUS
The next entry in the Time-Life "March of Progress" is Homo Erectus and is
described thus:

170
 HOMO ERECTUS: The first man of our own genus, Homo erectus is
modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity
extending only into the lower range of Homo sapiens. The sites he frequented
show that he led a communal life and knew the use of fire.

Comments: Homo Erectus appears to be a generic dumping ground for

fossils that share similarities to modern humans but cannot be put into any other
classifications because of the fragmentary evidence that is available. The Asian
fossils Java Man and Peking Man has since been proved to be modern humans
and therefore do not qualify. Let us take a look what is said about Homo Erectus
and see why there is so much confusion of this so called ancestor of man.

In the 1960s we come to a most confusing muddle of evolutionary thinking. To

start with early in the century due to discoveries in Java and at Zhoukoudian in
China it was believed that modern humans first evolved in Asia. With the finding
of Java Man and Peking Man, this seemed to have been proven. These hominids
were later they were reclassified as Homo Erectus.

In an article from the website of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History,

retrieved in 2010 we are told that, "Early fossil discoveries from Java (beginning
in the 1890s) and China ('Peking Man', beginning in the 1920s) comprise the
classic examples of this species. Generally considered to have been the first
species to have expanded beyond Africa, Homo erectus is considered a highly
variable species, spread over two continents (it's not certain whether it reached
Europe), and possibly the longest lived early human species - about nine times as
long as our own species, Homo sapiens, has been around!" [14]

How accurate is the Smithsonian Museum in their statement about Homo

erectus? Let us go back and take another look at what we discussed about these
two so called ancestors of man (Java Man and Peking Man) that are now
classified as Homo erectus and see if they are what evolutionists believe them to
be.

JAVA MAN
If the reader will recall Eugène Dubois discovered in 1891 a few fragments of
an individual hominid consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. These
were found at Trinil on the banks of the Solo River in Java. The femur (thigh
bone) was found twelve meters away and many scientists believe that it was from
a different individual, that of a modern human. Mike Foley of TalkOrigins
admits, "Creationists are right about one thing. Most modern scientists agree that
the femur is more recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human. Some
of the teeth found nearby are now thought to be from an orangutan, rather than
Homo erectus." [15]

With the femur out of the picture that really only leaves the skullcap and
maybe a few teeth to determine whether Java Man is an ancestor of man or an

171
 ape. Not much to go on the reader must agree but let us press on. The brain
size was about 940 cc. This is larger than any apes that presently live in Java but
this does not preclude extinct apes that may have existed in the time in which
Java Man is reputed to have lived.

After being snubbed about his "missing link" claim Dubois kept the Java man
fragments in a safe, as was reported in Science magazine (23rd June 1923).
"There is a "skeleton in the closet" or man's evolutionary history, and Prof. E.
DuBois holds the key. The "closet" is said to be a good stout safe in Haarlem,
Holland, and the skeleton is none other than that of Pithecanthropus erectus, the
famous ape-man who lived in Java over a half million years ago. For thirty years
scientists from all over Europe have besieged Dr. DuBois for permission to
examine the remains, while eminent anthropologists have crossed the ocean for
that purpose only to be turned away at the door." [16]

Eventually, Dubois allowed Dr. Alex Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institute,

the courtesy of the first opportunity to make a thorough examination of the
original fossils. Hrdlicka said in August makes an amazing statement.

"None of the published illustrations or the casts now in various

institutions is accurate. Especially is this true of the teeth and the thigh
bone. The new brain cast is very close to human. The femur is without
question human." [17]

"The new brain cast is very close to human". Could it actually be the skull cap
of a modern human? On what basis was the skullcap dated? Java man was dated
from the geological deposits in which he was found but we have already seen that
within those same deposits they also contained the femur that was redoubtably
that of a human. But the size of the brain seemed to preclude this or does it? In
Science 10th June 1932, there is this statement.

"In the Smithsonian collection there are 32 American Indian skulls of

small stature but otherwise apparently normal individuals ranging in
capacity from 910 to 1,020 cc". [18]

Java man had a brain capacity of about 940 cc, which strongly suggests that
the skull belonged to a small modern human individual.

For some strange reason, evolutionist publications have failed to report the
Selenka-Trinil Expedition that took place in 1907. This expedition with seventeen
scientists was organised and run by Margarethe Lenore Selenka. It was set up to
find other fossils to support the claims made by Dubois, and it brought back to
Germany forty-three crate loads of fossils. Instead of proving Dubois correct, the
report of the expedition made some uncomfortable reading for those who
believed Java man was the missing link.

172
 The 342 page report was published in 1911 and was entitled 'Die
Pithecanthropus-Schichen auf Java'. The report was lost for a time but a copy of
the report was later discovered in the Volkschulla Library in Aachen, West
Germany. What did it say? This excavation dug through thirty-five feet of
sediment to the Trinil layer, but it was discovered that eighty-seven percent of
the gastropod fossils found in the layer were of known living types, together with
evidence of use of fire, and splinters of bone. Therefore Java man was found to be
considerably younger than what Dubois had claimed and apparently had lived
with modern humans. Another find two miles away in a deeper layer found the
tooth of a modern human, known as the Sondé fossil. [19]

More damaging evidence recorded in the report was the acknowledgement of

the impact of the nearby active volcano Mount Lawu-Kukusan, and the regular
flooding that occurs in the area. In fact local history tells of the river Solo
changing course in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, which probably means
that the Trinil layer was only about five hundred years old. Furthermore, because
volcanic matter is heavily mineralised, the report stated that the degree of
fossilisation of the skull was the result of the chemical nature of the volcanic not
the result of vast age.

The summary chapter of the report was written by Dr. Max Blanckenhorn. In it
he apologised to the reader because what they had hoped would be a
corroboration of Dubois's findings resulted instead, he used the German word for
'fruitless', to describe their failure to substantiate Dubois's claim that the famous
Java Man he had discovered had been our evolutionary ancestor. [20]

This was a damming report and Sir Arthur Keith, the famed Cambridge
University anatomist, acknowledged its negative findings in Nature in 1911. [21]
He was later asked to comment on the Java Man skullcap. He replied that the
chief question to be settled was whether or not the skullcap was human. To his
mind there were two basic differences: first, the very large cranial capacity of
human skulls as compared to ape skulls, and second, the large muscular ridges
and processes, connected with the chewing apparatus, which ape skulls have
compared to human skulls. On both points Keith declared that the Java Man
skullcap was distinctly human.... [22]

If we take away preconceived ideas of evolution or creation bias, one does not
need to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that what Dubois found had been
nothing more than a fragmented skullcap of a modern human. To say it belonged
to a "missing link" as Dubois claimed or treat the skullcap as that belonging to a
human ancestor (Homo erectus) by modern evolutionists is contrary to all the
evidence and is pure speculation of the worst kind. What about Peking Man? Was
he fully human or was he an apelike ancestor of man as has been claimed?

PEKING MAN

A group of fossil specimens was discovered in 1923-27 during excavations at

173
 Zhoukoudian (Chou K'ou-tien) near Beijing (written "Peking" before the
adoption of the Pinyin organisation system), China. It began with the finding of a
single tooth in 1923. "Peking man was identified as a member of the human
lineage by Davidson Black in 1927 on the basis of a single tooth." [23] However,
between 1929 and 1937, 15 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, some
skeletal bones and large numbers of stone tools were discovered in the Lower
Cave at Locality 1 of the Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, in China.
It should be noted that a number of modern human remains were also discovered
in the Upper Cave at the same site in 1933.

Most of the study on these fossils was done by Davidson Black until his death
in 1934. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin took over until Franz Weidenreich replaced
him and studied the fossils until he left China in 1941. The original fossils
disappeared in 1941 during World War II, but casts and descriptions remain.
Apart from a single tooth no original remains of Peking Man exist that can be
used for analysis.

The age of the remains of Peking Man was estimated to be between 300,000
and 500,000 years old but the dating was based upon the interpretation of the
age of the cave deposits where they had been found. The fossils themselves were
not dated. A BBC News report in 2009 admitted that "Experts have tried various
methods over the years to determine the age of the remains. But they have been
hampered by the lack of suitable techniques for dating cave deposits such as
those at Zhoukoudian." [24]

Clearly, with no original fossils available for dating the estimated date could be
grossly wrong. The same BBC report also claimed, based upon the radioactive
decay of unstable forms, or isotopes, of the elements' aluminium and beryllium in
quartz grains found in the caves, that Peking Man was much older than originally
thought. "The results show the Peking Man fossils came from ground layers that
were 680,000 - 780,000 years old, making them about 200,000 years older than
had previously been believed." [25]

There is a major problem with this conclusion and a fatal flaw when fossils are
dated this way. Just because they are found in a particular geological strata does
not mean that they were interned then when the geological material was laid
down. They could have easily been buried in the cave surface intentionally or by
natural causes such as flooding or natural cave erosion. One also needs to keep in
mind that in the cave above modern human bones had been found. Could some
of these have been moved and deposited in the lower cave? This is more than
likely. Earthquakes are common in China and especially in this area. China is
located between the two largest seismic belts, i.e. the circum-Pacific seismic belt
and the circum-Indian seismic belt. Squeezed by the Pacific plate, the Indian
plate and the Philippine plate, the seismic fracture zones are well developed in
this area.

In 1976 hundreds of thousands of people died following an 8.3 magnitude

earthquake that virtually destroyed the city of Tangshan that lies only 150 km

174
 east of the capital, Beijing and the Peking Man excavation site. Imagine how
many earthquakes have occurred in the past. It is very possible that the remains
of modern man in the upper cave was deposited into the lower cave and covered
over by rubble. It is interesting to note what Franze Weidenreich, who performed
the initial studies of the Peking Man fossils and made the plaster casts that
preserved the specimens for future study, said about the strange circumstances of
the Peking Man finds.

"Considering the number of individuals and the abundance of

material, the Peking Man - Sinanthropus pekinensis - takes first place.
He is represented by skeletal parts of about forty individuals, including
male and female, adult and juvenile specimens. None of these
individuals, are known from the entire skeleton, a great many of them
being represented by teeth only. In addition, there is a strange
limitation to the kind of preserved bones, in so far as they
chiefly consist of fragments of skulls and lower jaws,
whereas limb bones are scarce, being restricted mainly to the
fragments of seven thigh bones and one arm bone." [26] [bold
mine]

Let us assume that the skulls belonged among the skeletons in the upper cave.
Since skulls are the heaviest and rounded, is it not reasonable to assume that if
earthquakes had struck the area of the caves, that these would over time shake
downwards to the lower levels, to the lower cave area? If that was the case then
we would expect to find the remaining parts of the skeletons that had not moved
down with the skullcaps to be still in the upper cave or somewhere in between?

Coincidentally, at the same time as the first skullcap was found and reported in
December 1929, it was also reported in various newspapers such as the New York
Times, Daily Telegraph, The Southeast Missourian, New York Evening Post and
The Tuscaloosa News to mention just a few that ten skeletons had been
unearthed simultaneously with an unbroken skull. Furthermore nine of the
skeletons were headless! [27]

175
 It is interesting to note that the reports stated that "The scientists who have
worked in the sandstone excavations have been sworn to secrecy..." [28] Why?
What were they hiding or more to the point what were they told not to tell? The
reports ended with the note that, "Dr. J. G. Anderson, Swedish advisor to the
Chinese Geological Survey, and others have now entered upon a particular search
for heads of the skeletons." [29] Did he find them the missing heads in the lower
cave?

Based on the sequence of events we can piece together the story. The first skull
was found on 2nd December 1929. On that day Davidson Black wrote a letter to
Grafton Elliot Smith in England in which he excitedly talks about the discovery of
the "greater part of an uncrushed adult Sinanthropus skull!" - the skeletons are
not mentioned, probably because they had not been found yet. However, between
2nd December and 16th December, the ten skeletons had been found and nine of
which were headless. This also coincided with the report that human skeletons
were found in the upper cave area. Were these the headless skeletons that had
been reported?

As a follow up to the previous announcements about the original skull, news of

the headless skeletons was hastily cabled to the various news agencies, before the
ramifications of what they had found became apparent. Sworn to secrecy the
workers were told not to mention the skeletons and were probably paid to keep
silent. Why? Only a year before funding for excavating the site lay in the balance
and literally, just before it had run out a lower jaw, several teeth and a number of
skull fragments had been found. As a result and based on these finds Black had

176
 managed to obtain a grant of $80,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Although Black now had the funds he needed to show something more
substantial to justify the money. When the intact skull was found early in
December 1929 it was the answer to his prayers, but afterwards when the
headless skeletons of modern humans were also uncovered in the cave above he
found himself in serious dilemma. People would soon put two and two together
and realise that the intact skull was one of those that originated from the modern
humans, and he had already announced that it belonged to a missing link
ancestor of man. He did the only thing he could do to save his reputation and the
funding. The headless skeletons were "disposed off" and the workers were sworn
to secrecy. The skeletons were not mentioned again although he could not stop
the story that modern human remains had been found in the upper caves.

Jim Foley of TalkOrigins would disagree with this hypothesis. Creationist

author Malcolm Bowden (1981) had also observed the strange case of the ten
skeletons and believed that scientists had committed a colossal fraud by hiding
the existence of ten skeletons. This is the first time in this book that I have
referred to a Creationist viewpoint but I do so because Foley does.

In defence of the status quo Foley called upon an article written by French
scientist Marcellin Boule for the journal L'Anthropologie (Boule 1929). By the
way, this is the same Marcellin Boule who purposely fabricated an erroneous
picture of Neanderthal Man that misled the entire world for decades in believing
that Neanderthals were brutish, bent knead and not a fully erect biped. I shall
argue in the next chapter that this was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated to
prove the theory of evolution, a fraud that was greater than even Piltdown Man.
But I digress.

Boule had read the newspaper reports and wanted to know more about the
finds, so he wrote in the journal L'Anthropologie, "Between then and now,
excavations continued at Choukoutien with such success that, around the middle
of December 1929, the English newspapers made a big noise of the new finds,
while moreover reporting them inaccurately and exaggerating them. Thus the
Daily Telegraph of December 10 1929 [sic; should be Dec 16], for example,
announced the discovery of ten petrified skeletons dating back to a million years
and representing the ancestors of the human species. The newspaper then gave
interviews with diverse scientific notables of London, notably [Sir Grafton] Elliot
Smith." [30]

Boule confirmed the newspaper reports, however later in the same article,
Boule refers to a letter he received from Teilhard de Chardin which gave details
on the new discovery: "And, some days after [receiving a cable on Dec 28, 1929],
I indeed received by post, from my scientific collaborator and friend M. Teilhard
de Chardin, some precise details on the new finds. Unfortunately it was not about
ten skeletons, but a cranial skullcap, moreover very interesting, as we are going
to see: ..."[31]

177
 I am afraid all Foley has done is simply confirmed what I have already stated.
From the time that the skull was found and the hastily sent cable that described
the ten skeletons, Black had set in motion a cover up. By the time Boule received
the text in a communique that Black had written for the press, Black was in a
position to deny that there had been any headless skeletons. They had been
removed and the workers sworn to secrecy. The press communique said,
"Contrary to any reports which have been circulated, no skeletal parts other than
the skull and numerous isolated teeth have been recovered during this year's
excavations." [32] He would say that wouldn't he?

In the years that followed Black kept to his story and in doing so ensured the
continuation of his funding and his reputation remaining intact. In 1932 he was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, a self-governing Fellowship of many of the
world's most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science,
engineering, and medicine. Black had reached the heights of fame but two years
later he died of a heart attack, age 49 taking his secret to the grave.

At the Peking Man World Heritage Site at Zhoukoudian are displayed seven
replicas of the skullcaps found at the site. I challenge the reader to compare these
to that of a modern cranium in the picture below and say that they are really that
different.

178
 In conclusion it is evident that the remains of Peking Man were in fact those of
modern humans. Likewise, from the evidence I have presented herein the
remains of Java Man was those of modern humans too. Consequently, these
Asian representatives of so called Homo erectus should be removed from this
evolutionary inspired genus post haste. We now turn to Africa and the discovery
of hominids who have been designated Homo erectus.

TERNIFINE MAN
Ternifine is an Acheulean site located near Palikao in the Oran region of
Algeria, which contained three mandibles (jaw bone fragments) and a skull
fragment probably assigned to Homo erectus (or possibly H. ergaster), dated
between 730,000 and 600,000 years ago. The name "Acheulean" is given to an
archaeological industry of stone tool manufacture associated with early humans
during the Lower Palaeolithic era across Africa and much of West Asia, South
Asia, and Europe and Acheulean tools were found in association with the skeletal
material, as were theropithecus faunal material. Ternifine was excavated by
French paleontologist Camille Arambourg in the 1950s.

It will be prudent to simply quote directly from the book "The Evolution of
Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct
Species" by G. Philip Rightmire and published in 1990 with regard to the
viability of Ternifine Man being a Homo erectus ancestor of man.

"The first hominid from northwest Africa showing a resemblance to

Homo erectus was discovered in 1933. The find was made by workmen
quarrying in the consolidated dune of Kebitat, near Rabat on the
Atlantic coast of Morocco. Only parts of a fragmented vault, the left
maxilla, and the lower jaw of a subadult individual was recovered.
Uncertainties concerning the dating of these fossils have still not been
resolved, although it is agreed that they are of later Middle Pleistocene
age. Controversy over the significance of the Ragat hominid has also
persisted. The bones have been linked to homo erectus by some
workers, or viewed at least intermediate in their morphology between
archaic humans and more modern humans.... Other workers including
Howell (1978) prefer simply to assign the fossils to Homo
sapiens." [34]

I am always amazed how the finding of a jaw and a few teeth can suddenly
attributed to an evolutionary ancestor of man and not modern man. But this
happens time and time again as we have seen in this tome. However, in this
particular case with Ternifine Man common sense prevailed in certain quarters
and as the aforementioned book says, "Given these and other features, it is
difficult to see how an identification of Homo erectus can be justified." [35] In
this case I am sure Howell, the creator of the "March of Progress" is correct. The
fossils belong to Homo sapiens, i.e modern man.

179
TURKANA BOY (KHM-WT 15000)
Another African "ancestor of man" classified as a Homo erectus is Turkana Boy
(also known as Nariokotome Boy), although sometimes he is placed in the same
category as Homo ergaster. Dated at 1.6 million years old on the evolutionary
timeline, Turkana Boy is claimed to represent a primitive subhuman ancestor of
modern humans. The skeleton was discovered in 1984 by Kamoya Kimeu, a
member of a team led by Richard Leakey, at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in
Kenya. This specimen comprising 108 bones is the most complete early human
skeleton ever found. His age at time of death is estimated to be between seven to
fifteen years of age.

In the 1988 video Mysteries of Mankind, produced by National Geographic,

Richard Leakey said about Turkana Boy:

"I think [the Turkana Boy] is remarkable because it's so complete, but
perhaps another aspect that is often overlooked is that many people
who don't like the idea of human evolution have been able to discount
much of the work that we've done on the basis that it's built on
fragmentary evidence. There have just been bits and pieces, and who
knows, those little bits of bone could belong to anything. To confront
some of these people with a complete skeleton that is human and is so
obviously related to us in a context where it's definitely one and a half
million years or even more is fairly convincing evidence, and I think
many of the people who are fence-sitters on this discussion about
creationism vs. evolution are going to have to get off the fence in the
light of this discovery."

In this respects Leakey was right! The evolution of man is told as if it was a fact
when most of what is presented as evidence is built upon fragmentary evidence.
As he says, "There have just been bits and pieces, and who knows, those little bits
of bone could belong to anything."

With the finding of Turkana Boy this was a landmark discovery as it was
almost a complete skeleton which evidently showed that an ancestor of man one
and a half million years old had existed. There is just one problem. There is
considerable evidence to support the belief that what Leakey found were in fact
the remains of a modern human child that had been interred in the volcanic
deposits in which he was found. It was these volcanic deposits that were dated by
the argon-potassium dating technique and not the skeleton.

Had the remains of Turkana Boy been found on the surface he could have been
mistaken for a modern adolescent Kenyan bushman. However, the skeleton was
found sandwiched between layers of volcanic ash and so it was assumed that the
boy had died at that location and had been covered over by the ash of an erupting

180
 volcano. Hence, potassium-argon and argon-argon dating of the volcanic rock
was carried out instead. The bones were not dated themselves. "By using
measurements of how distant the skeleton was from each of these layers and
assumptions about how fast the intervening layers would have formed, an
estimated age of about 1.53 million years was obtained." [36]

For some strange reason it never occurred to anyone of the Leakey team that
the boy might have been a young Kenyan bushman who when he had died had
been buried in the place where he was later recovered. The same document also
said, "Despite his great antiquity his body, apart from his skull, is surprisingly
like our own and shows that early humans had already reached our size 1.5
million years ago. A paleoanthropologist has even quipped that, if suitably
dressed, the Turkana Boy could pass unnoticed in a commuter crowd, provided
he concealed his low forehead and large brow ridges under a cap." [37]

While it is true that the Turkana Boy had a low forehead with larger brow
ridges when compared to that of modern bushmen, this does that mean that he
was a million years old? Apart from the peculiarities of the skull his skeleton was
no different from that of children of bushman living today as has been
acknowledged in the aforementioned report. If having a different shaped skull
means that the boy must be millions of years old as has been suggested, then how
do we explain a bushman called Bassou who lives in the Valley of Dades, near the
town of Skoura, in Morocco. He too has a low forehead with large brow ridges.
He sleeps in the trees and subsists on dates, berries, and insects and he wears no
clothes.

The local Berbers had been aware of Bassou's presence for at least thirty years,
but they have shunned him in superstitious fear. They had been unable to give
any clue as to his origins. Is it not possible that perhaps centuries ago another
individual like Bassou was born, the same one we call Turkana boy? Is it also not
possible that perhaps this time the local bushmen were not so benevolent as their

181
 modern counterparts and killed the boy instead. What more do we know about
the circumstances of his death?

We read in the document, "Turkana Boy: A 1.5-Million-year-old

Skeleton":

"According to the reports of the Turkana Boy's discovery, the skeleton

was found in a scatter of broken bird and mammal bones together with
some remains of fish and aquatic reptiles. The teeth were clustered in a
hollow about 9.8 feet (3 metres) away from the main concentration of
bones. Almost all the bones were broken but not weathered." [38]

What can we deduce from this? It would appear that the Turkana Boy had
been attacked by an angry mob who battered him to death at his camp site where
his food provisions had been stored. During his struggle with his attackers, the
boy's teeth had been knocked out and were kicked about three metres away from
the scene of the crime. As he lay unconscious on the ground the mob kicked his
corpse in a scene of unbridled frenzy. Almost all the bones were broken and being
of such a young age they would have easily had been shattered under the
onslaught. Afterwards he was hastily buried where he lay until he was discovered
by the Leakey team in 1984.

Of course evolutionists offer a different explanation. "This context suggests

that when the boy died, his corpse either fell or was washed into a marsh, where
it floated face down decomposing for a time. The teeth dropped out and were
washed into a hollow probably formed by an animal footprint, while the body
continued to drift slowly back and forth. It was trampled by large animals and,

182
 when only a few bones were still connected by ligaments, the remains were
washed into a concentration in the shallows, where they became embedded in
mud and remained until they began to erode out 1.5 million years later. " [39]

There are two flaws with this scenario. First, the skeleton was described as
having been found "sandwiched between volcanic ashes" and that is how the
dating was done. Where did the marsh come from? Secondly, if the boy had
washed into a marsh, the chances of it surviving predators would be nil. The
corpse would have been mauled by hyenas, wild dogs or other animals not to
mention alligators. His bones would have been scattered all over the place. This
explanation does not add up. It is more than likely that Turkana Boy had killed
and had been buried in recent times.

It is interesting to note what the document "Turkana Boy: A 1.5-Million-year-

old Skeleton" says in conclusion. "The Turkana Boy's skeleton defied the odds
and survived to provide us with a remarkably complete image of ancestors we
previously knew only from isolated fragments of bone." [40] First we are
reminded by that statement that the image of ancestors was only previously
known from fragments of bone - and this was in 1984! Secondly, the bones were
not fossilised and appeared to be as fresh as human bones that are only a few
centuries old. Furthermore, it is rather incredulous to think that the Turkana Boy
remains could have survived in the condition in which he was found for a million
years or more. That really is stretching credibility to the limit.

From what we have seen so far the group of hominids called "Homo erectus"
appears to be a generic dumping ground for fossils that share human
characteristics but do not fit into any other classification. The Asian group of this
genus i.e. Java Man and Peking Man I have already identified as being those of
modern humans, and the African group consisting of Ternifine Man and Turkana
boy also likely to have been Homo sapiens too. So the question is this. Are these
Homo erectus forms proof of an evolutionary progression from the apes, or are
they simply temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of
human beings?

The evolutionist website "archaeologyinfo.com" reveals the confusion that

Homo erectus invokes and shows that some scientists even "question its place in
human evolution":

"Throughout the early years of paleoanthropology, there were only two

different species that were attributed to the genus Homo. These
included the Neanderthals, and Homo erectus. In the early 1960s, this
began to change, and human ancestry seemed to be populated by many
different players. Accordingly, erectus is one of the better-known
members of genus Homo, especially in terms of its well-established
place in paleoanthropology. This has begun to change, however, and
now some question its place in human evolution. Some (e.g., M.
Wolpoff) claimed that erectus was an invalid taxon, though few

183
 accepted this interpretation at this point in time. Others believe that
the material previously attributed to erectus should be split into several
different taxons: Asian and later African material remaining as erectus
(with erectus not contributing to modern humans), early
African material as ergaster, and European material as
heidelbergensis." [bold mine] [41]

Even Richard Leakey was willing to concede that the difference between Homo
erectus and modern man was only that of racial variance. He wrote his thoughts
about the matter in his book The Making of Mankind in 1981.

"One would also see differences in the shape of the skull, in the degree
of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These
differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today
between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such
biological variation arises when populations are geographically
separated from each other for significant lengths of time." [42]

I think it is fair to say from what I have discussed that Richard Leakey is
correct. What we are seeing is simple racial variance of Homo sapiens. The
cranial capacity of Homo erectus fossils, 750-1250 cubic centimetres, falls within
the range for modern humans (700-2200 cc) and the few body skeletons that
have been found are very similar to modern humans, except in some cases their
bones appear to be a little heavier and thicker.

To recap then, so far as we have examined what was considered the evolution
of man during the 1960's and we have learned that the first eight out of the
fifteen "proofs" in the Time-Life "March of Progress" were extinct apes with no
evidence of being ancestors of man. The ninth one of the lineage was Homo
erectus. He is somewhat of an enigma but the evidence appears to show that the
reported finds of this genus were in fact Homo sapiens that have been
misidentified and wrongly dated by evolutionists.

We are now left with just six remaining "proofs" of evolution. However, we do
not count the last figure in the list as that is modern man, homo sapiens so that
leaves us five in the frame. We can also discard Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals
from the list as these supposed ancestors of man are universally accepted today
as having coexisted. "Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from
Neanderthals but now we know that both species lived during the same time
period and that we did not come from Neanderthals." [43] Consequently, if
modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted they cannot be our ancestors. They
are only in fact only variations of the same species. (We shall discuss in greater
detail about Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons in chapter nine under the heading,
"The Truth about Neanderthals").

184
 We are only left entries in the Time-Life "March of Progress" list. These are
Early Homo Sapiens, Solo Man and Rhodesian Man. I have grouped
these three under the heading of "Archaic Humans" because this is term
commonly used to refer to these so called evolutionary ancestors of man.

It is clear to anybody with a degree of common sense that the evolution of man
as presented in the 1960s leaves much to be desired. We have seen that the first
group of eight candidates were in fact extinct apes, while the next one in the list,
Homo erectus which has several members of Asian and African origins, are in
fact variations within the species of modern man. And that the last three
candidates Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens coexisted, meaning
that they could not have evolved from one another. What a travesty of science!
Can the three remaining members of the Archaic group offer any solace for the
evolutionist model?

ARCHAIC HUMANS
Archaic humans are distinguished, it is said, from anatomically modern
humans by having a thicker skull, prominent brow ridges and lack a prominent
chin. However their brain size averages 1200 to 1400 cubic centimetres, which
overlaps with the range of modern humans. Let us now take a look at what the
Time-Life book wrote about them.

EARLY HOMO SAPIENS: Three European fossil men-Swanscombe,

Steinheim and Montmaurin-are probably the earliest examples of man's
modern species. Their dentition is primitive, but the back of the skull and the
face are more modern. The brain capacity is within modern range.

SWANSCOMBE MAN
At the village of Swanscombe in north-west Kent, England, on the Thames east

185
 of London lies a former gravel quarry called Barnfield Pit. During 1935/1936
work at the pit uncovered two fossilised skull fragments. These fragments came
to be known as Swanscombe Man, a name that was retained despite a renewed
identification that established that they had belonged to a young woman. They
were found by Alvan T. Marston, a dentist with an interest in the Palaeolithic,
and who had been searching the quarried faces in Barnfield Pit for flint tools.

It was on Saturday 29 June, 1935 that Alvan T Marston, a dentist with an

interest in the Palaeolithic, was searching the quarried faces in Barnfield Pit for
flint tools. In one face, six feet above the pit floor, he spotted what he thought
might be a bit of bone sticking out. On closer inspection he immediately
recognised it as a human occipital bone (ie. from the base of the skull at the
back). For the next nine months he spent most of his weekends searching near
the same spot and in March 1936 he found another part of the same skull, the left
parietal. Amazingly, a third separate part of the same skull was found twenty
years later on Saturday 30 July 1955, during investigations by John Wymer at a
spot more than 80 feet from the earlier discoveries.

The Barnfield Pit area was already famous for the finds of numerous
Palaeolithic era hand axes - mostly Acheulean and Clactonian artifacts, said to be
as much as 400,000 years old. How one can date stone tools and declare that
they were of such a great age is beyond me but as they are usually found amidst
the remains of extinct mammoths and bison, then that was probably how they
were dated. As for the bone fragments of Swanscombe Man who was later
identified as that belonging to those of a woman it was declared that he/she was
250,000 years old.

The dating of Swanscombe Man was based entirely on conjecture as the local

186
 newspaper Kent Online of 28th May 2013 clearly shows. "In Palaeolithic times,
250,000 years ago, Swanscombe Man lived and hunted elephants among the
marshes on the gravel levels to the north of the present village." The bones were
not themselves dated but it was assumed that as they had been found in the same
soil level where Palaeolithic extinct animals had been found then he/she must be
of the same age. This is very bad science.

With so little evidence apart from the skull fragments there is nothing to
suggest that Swanscombe Man (woman) was anything other than that of a
modern human. He/she could have easily have been a person who died, perhaps
murdered, in recent times and dumped at the site. This is known as an intrusive
burial and these are quite common and often misinterpreted as being older than
they really are simply because the deposits have been used as a dating guide.
Such was the case of Galley Hill Man too.

GALLEY HILL MAN

In 1888, workmen removing deposits at Galley Hill, near London, England,

exposed a bed of chalk. The overlying layers of sand, loam, and gravel were about
ten feet thick. One workman, Jack Allsop, informed Robert Elliott, a collector of
prehistoric items, that he had discovered a human skeleton firmly embedded in
these deposits about eight feet below the surface and about two feet above the
chalk bed. Elliott stated afterwards that he saw the skeleton firmly embedded in
the stratum and there were no signs of it being disturbed, the stratification being
unbroken. He later gave the skeleton to E. T. Newton the chief paleontologist of
the Jermyn Street Museum, (later to become the Geological Museum, South
Kensington) who published a report granting it great age.

The deposits in which the skeleton had been found were considered to be of

187
 early Pleistocene age; crude stone tools found near the skeleton were similar to
others found elsewhere in association with extinct fauna of the same period, so
the related geological and archaeological evidence seemed to suggest that Galley
Hill Man was very old indeed.

Despite the stratigraphic evidence reported by Elliott the British Museum

paleontologists K. P. Oakley and M. F. A. Montagu concluded in 1949 that the
skeleton must have been recently buried in the Middle Pleistocene deposits. The
anatomical evidence clearly showed that the specimen represented Homo
sapiens. The cranial capacity (about 1400 cubic centimetres) was well within the
modern range, the chin did not recede, the jaw structure was compatible with the
faculty of speech and the thigh-bone indicated an habitual erect posture.
Furthermore, the skeleton was unusually complete and had been found with its
parts in close proximity. As a result Oakley and Montagu considered the bones,
which were not fossilised, to be only a few thousand years old. (This is also the
opinion of almost all anthropologists today).

Later, the British Museum Research Laboratory obtained a Carbon 14 date of

3,310 years for the Galley Hill skeleton although some researchers believed the
date was unreliable because it had been stored in a museum for 80 years, and
was probably contaminated by the London carbon rich atmosphere that poured
out from coal fires all over London. However, geologists disagreed with the
paleontologists that the skeleton was of any great age. They knew that the gravel
in which the skeleton had been found had been deposited by the River Thames
when it flowed one hundred feet above its present level. A fierce debate between
members of the two earth sciences ensued which lasted for many years. But in
the end the matter was resolved and Louis Leaky summed up the outcome of the
deliberations.

Louis Leakey said, "Echoes of the fierce controversies which raged over the
geological age of 'Galley Hill Man' were prolonged for years. Eventually, it was
generally accepted that the deposit in which the skeleton had been found must
have been below the level of the river in Pleistocene times. This being so, it was
argued that the skeleton was unlikely to have remained intact through the
centuries which had elapsed before the level of water had dropped. It seemed far
more likely that the Galley Hill skeleton was of relatively recent origin, and was
an intrusive burial into the gravel deposit in which it was found." [44]

In other words, Galley Hill Man was a modern human who had met his death
in recent times.

STEINHAM MAN

188
 In 1933 a fossilised skull was found Steinheim (20 km north of Stuttgart) in
Germany. The skull was slightly flattened and has a cranial capacity from 1070
cc. It clearly displayed Neanderthal features but it was put into the category of
archaic Homo sapiens (more recently reclassified as belong or the genus Homo
heidelbergensis).

The circumstances of the skull's discovery was similar to that in which the
Heidelberg jaw had been found which was discussed earlier in this book. It was
discovered first by the owner of a gravel pit who was keenly interested in
prehistoric remains. The find was immediately reported by Herr Sigrist to
Professor Berckhemer of the Stuttgart Natural History Museum, who hurried to
the spot. The skull was found in a layer of gravel where mammoth and rhinoceros
bones had been found, hence it was estimated to be 250,000 to 350,000 years
old. [45]

Berckhemer believed that the skull represented an individual who was older in
geological time than modern man as well as being more primitive that
Neanderthal Man, and yet he had some characteristics that were Homo sapiens.
Steinheim Man had prominent brow ridges and a strongly built upper jaw that
resembled those of Neanderthals, but the back part of the skull was rounded, as
found in modern man.

Many anthropologists disagreed with Berckhemer. Dr Hans Weinert of Berlin,

for example, maintained that it should be grouped unquestionably with
Neanderthal Man. Others believed that the individual was the offspring of inter-
breeding between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Louis Leaky suggested that
Neanderthals and the Rhodesian skull (discussed later) should no longer be
regarded as "primitive stages" of modern man, but rather as over specialised off-
shoots (variations) forms of Homo sapiens. This is how archaic humans including
Neanderthals are viewed today. However, because Steinheim Man exhibited both
Neanderthal and Homo sapien traits, he was placed in the genus Homo
heidelbergensis and presumed to be the ancestor of both.

189
 Steinheim Man was dated like the other fossils described here in this section
by looking at the deposits in which his remains were found. Again, because the
bones were associated with those of extinct animals which were said to have
existed 400,000 years ago, they were dated as being 350,000 years old.
However, since these animals became extinct at the Quaternary extinction event
which occurred around 8000 BC, it is just as easy to conjecture that the bones
were only 10,000 years old. At the end of the day it is all guess work based upon
evolutionist preconceptions and the dating methods would hardly hold up in a
court of law as forensic evidence.

Encyclopaedia Britannica makes an unintentional slip.

"Steinheim skull, human fossil remnant found in 1933 along the Murr
River about 20 km (12 miles) north of Stuttgart, Germany. Found in
association with bones of elephants and rhinoceroses, the specimen
has been dated to approximately 350,000 years ago. The skull is
characterised by an estimated cranial capacity of 1,100 cc (67 cubic
inches), a long, slightly flattened skull, moderately heavy browridges,
and a rounded rear portion. It does not deviate from the normal
range of variation for these traits in modern man. Steinheim is
classified as an archaic Homo sapiens or as Homo
heidelbergensis." [bold mine]

"It does not deviate from the normal range of variation for these traits in
modern man". That is the point! Are we looking at evolution or just the natural
variation that happens to all species as Leakey and others have suggested?

There is also evidence as reported in the scientific paper The Anatomical

Record Part B: The New Anatomist (Volume 273B, Issue 1: June 2003) that the
skull was simply a deformed Homo sapien. It says under the heading Electronic
Removal of Encrustations Inside the Steinheim Cranium Reveals
Paranasal Sinus Features and Deformations, and Provides a Revised
Endocranial Volume Estimate.

190
 "Furthermore, its position in the debate of being a proto Neanderthal
(Wolpoff, 1980; Stringer,1985) must be reviewed, because the
evaluations of the external morphologies must be reconsidered in light
of the discovered multidirected distortions/deformations visible
internally."

In other words, doubts has arisen as to whether Steinheim Man was a proto
Neanderthal or simply a modern human with a skull deformity.

SOLO MAN

The next figure in the Time-Life "March of Progress" is Solo Man. Here is what
the books has to say:

SOLO MAN: An extinct race of Homo sapiens in Java, Solo man is

recognized so far only from two shin bones and some fragments of skull. These
indicate that his limbs were modern in appearance; his skull, however, was
massive and thick, with heavy brows and sloping forehead.

Between 1931 and 1933, a Dutch team found human cranial remains of 12
individuals in a half metre thick sandstone deposit by the Solo River. Two human
leg bones were also found. Between 1976 and 1980, Gadjah Mada University
(Java) excavated an adjacent area and recovered the human cranial remains of
two more individuals together with some human pelvic fragments, various
human artifacts and many animal fossils. The human fossils recovered were not
complete skulls, but are called calvaria, calottes, and cranial fragments. (A
calvarium is a skull without the bones of the face or lower jaw. A calotte is just
the top of the skull.)

Since the original finds occurred well before the advent of radiometric dating,
almost all the dating was based upon the fauna (animal fossils) found with the

191
 skulls. The most recent age ascribed to the fossils was about 150,000 to
100,000 years old. (Most of the fossils were lost during World War II). The
remains were classified as belong to late Homo Erectus, younger than that of
Java Man because the deposits in which they were found was on a leve that was
higher up than where the famous Java Man remains were found by Eugene
Dubois.

The Solo fossils do, however, have a larger cranial capacity than does the
average Homo erectus skull. For this reason, many evolutionists believe that Solo
Man was a "transitional" link between Homo erectus and modern humans.
However, as reported in Science, 13th December 1996 a team headed by Carl
Swisher III and G. H. Curtis of the Berkeley Geochronology Centre dated two
fossil sites in central Java, the Solo (Ngandong) site and the Sambungmacan site
using two different dating methods, electron spin resonance and mass
spectrometric U-series. The new data - a maximum of 46,000 YBP (years before
the present) with a probable date of 27,000 YBP - strongly suggests that Homo
erectus coexisted with anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) long after
Homo erectus was supposed to have become extinct.

Evolutionists believe that modern humans arrived on the scene 100,000 years
ago hence "transitional fossils" such as Solo Man dated at 27,000 years of age
does not fit into the evolution model. [46] Needless to says, here we find another
transitional link going down the pan.

RHODESIAN MAN

We now come to the last member of the Archaic Homo sapiens group. Here is
what the Time-Life book said:

RHODESIAN MAN: Another extinct race of Homo sapiens that dwelled in

Africa, these men were more modern than Homo erectus but more primitive

192
 than the first Bushmanlike peoples. Fossil remains have been found with
cutting and scraping tools of stone as well as some of bone.

Homo rhodesiensis is a hominid species described from a single fossil skull. It

was found in the colony of Northern Rhodesia, (now Zambia) in an iron and zinc
cave at Broken Hill (now Kabwe) in 1921 by a miner, Tom Zwiglaar. The skull
lacked the lower jaw, but otherwise was almost complete. In addition to the
cranium, an upper jaw from another individual, a sacrum (bone of the pelvis), a
tibia, and two femur fragments were also found.

Samples from the skull of Rhodesian Man cannot be used to obtain an exact
radiometric date and the site within the mine where the skull was found is now
flooded. It is believed (speculated) to be of Late Pleistocene age (between
120,000 and 300,000 years old), but this doesn't narrow things down
particularly much. The skull is from an extremely robust individual, and has the
comparatively largest brow-ridges of any known hominid remains. It was
described as having a broad face similar to Homo neanderthalensis (i.e. large
nose and thick protruding brow ridges), and has been interpreted as an "African
Neanderthal".

The facial bones of Rhodesian Man are said to have similarities to

Neanderthals and modern humans. Although the eyebrow ridges are heavy and
large, these bones do not show any apelike features, such as a protruding muzzle.
The cranial capacity falls within the normal range for human beings. Most
current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo
heidelbergensis.

It is interesting to note that the specimen was first described by anthropologist

Arthur Smith Woodward of the London Museum of Natural History, the same
man who was the co-discoverer of what has since became known as one of the
most blatant scientific frauds of modern times, Piltdown Man (1912). Hardly the
kind of endorsement one can have confidence with.

Woodward wrote about the Rhodesian Man skull in Nature Magazine under
the heading A NEW CAVE MAN FROM RHODESIA in which he said that
the Skull was not mineralised. This suggest that it was of recent age. He very
words were, "The skull is in a remarkable fresh state of preservation, the bone
having merely lost its animal matter and not having been in the least
mineralised. As shown in the accompanying photograph, it is strangely similar to
the skull of the Neanderthal or Mousterian race found in the caves of Belgium,
France and Gibraltar." [47]

Professor Elliot Smith writing in the British Medical Journal of 4th February,
1921 makes it clear that "although there was no doubt that the skull represented a
distinct species, and that the face was more primitive than any other known
member of the human family, yet the remains presented every appearance of
being very recent. The teeth, for instance, were attacked by an extreme form of
carics, hitherto regarded as a relatively recent ailment... Although the remains

193
 were commonly spoken of as a fossil, the bones were not fossilised, in the true
sense of the term...The animal remains which were found in the same cave all
represented modern species, which were still living in Africa." [48]

The skull showed signs of disease and wounds that occurred in the lifetime of
this individual. Ten of the upper teeth have abscesses. Additionally, a partially
healed puncture wound is visible above and in front of the hole for the ear. This
approximate .25 inch diameter wound was made by either a projectile, piercing
instrument or the tooth of a predator but the exact nature is not known. There is
even serious speculation that the hole was the result of a bullet although others
say that the edges of the lesion had started to heal, so whatever caused the hole
was not the cause of death. It could well have been caused by an arrow that
bounced off the man's very robust head, but had not killed him but then that
would mean that it was not an ancient skull. Keep in mind also that the skull
(cranium) was found in association with a jaw fragment, a sacrum, and portions
of pelvis and limb bones. The limb bones are robust but otherwise
indistinguishable from those of modern humans. The pelvis was also modern.

Rhodesian Man is certainly an enigma. Although the Scientific American

Magazine of 22nd February, 1922 shows him on the front cover as a caveman, he
was not found in a cave but was dug up during mining operations. He appears to
be fresh - the skull is not fossilised (turned into stone). He cannot be dated
because he was dug out of the ground and one could not use preconceived
geological strata to date the layers in which the skull had been found.
Furthermore, Professor Elliot Smith reported that the skull was found alongside
animal remains that were still extant in Africa, although evolutionary magazines
describe these as being those of extinct Pleistocene animals.

The discussions on Rhodesian Man is a confusing mishmash of fact and

speculation. The University of Antarctica in an article on primitive man describes
this confusion. "H. rhodesiensis, estimated to be 300,000-125,000 years old.
Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo
heidelbergensis though other designations such as Archaic Homo sapiens and
Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed." [49]

With no place to go in the evolutionary scheme of things, and being an oddity

with Neanderthal like features, Rhodesian Man has been swept under the carpet
so to speak and dumped into the Homo Heidelbergensis classification or archaic
Homo Sapiens. It is even suggested that Neanderthal Man might have evolved
from him.

APPRAISAL OF THE MARCH OF PROGRESS

I am sure the reader can now appreciate that the Time-Life "March of
Progress" of the 1960's was having a difficult time sorting out who was what in
the Archaic humans section. The key factor was that Swanscombe Man, Galley
Hill Man (who was probably a modern woman buried in the gravel), Steinheim

194
 Man and Rhodesian Man have now been put into a single genus, namely
Homo Heidelbergensis, while Solo Man found in Java is described as a late
Homo Erectus although I would argue that he is the remains of a normal human
just as I have indicated was the case with Java Man and Peking Man.

I used the Time-Life "March of Progress" that was produced in the 1960s as a
guide and because it showed the best evidence that was then at the disposal of
evolutionists at that time. We had seen in earlier chapters how each new
discovery was made, how they were publicised in the press and media and
throughout our journey of reflection I only used evolutionist sources to present
their case.

As we examined each claim one by one what did we find? What we found was a
lot of talk and insinuations regarding the collection of bone fragments as being
proof of evolution, but when push came to shove, they were all found wanting.
And that is not counting the deceptions, the gross misinterpretations made and
the arrogance shown by some evolutionary scientists who fell over themselves
backwards to gain fame and fortune by selling their souls to the devil.
Fortunately, among them were a few who could see what was going on and spoke
out. Sometimes too scientists from other disciplines brought proper science to
the fore to uncover the falsehoods perpetrated by evolutionary biased scientists.

That the theory of evolution as a model for the origins of man is in a state of
chaos is clearly evident from what I have investigated. And if what I have written
still does not convince you, then just read the newspapers in recent times. For
example, in 2007 newspapers around the world aired the headline AFRICAN
FOSSILS PAINT CHAOTIC PICTURE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION (USA
Today) or FOSSILS PAINT MESSY PICTURE OF HUMAN ORIGINS -
New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom (NBC News). The
newspapers told the same story.

"Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the

iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape
and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist
Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward
bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our
ancestors... Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic
kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you
see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some
intermediate and eventually unto us ... [50]

If you have not already recognised the flaws in the evolution model for the
origins of man from what you have read in this book thus far there is more to
come, a lot more. The Time-Life "March of Progress" served a purpose, a guide as
to what was taught in the 1960s. With respects to Archaic humans, we are now in
a position to redraw this group.

195
 In the next chapter we move forward forty years to 2010 and see how the
origins of man is seen today from an evolutionary prospectus. In the interim,
much has happened and you will see some significant differences to what was
believed then and what is believed now. There are also some surprises that will
make the last one-hundred and fifty years of evolutionary research seem surreal.
What all this means is that what convinced you to believe in evolution, what you
were taught at school, has been a sham from the very beginning.

If you thought that there was overwhelming evidence to support the evolution
of man, you could not be more wrong. It is all change as we go from one bogus
model to the another one, just as the aforementioned quote suggests.

196
 Chapter 8
SORTING OUT THE MESS

"The number of species recognised today as being part of the human family is
mercifully small, just a half dozen or so, the multitude of species names of the
earlier decades of the century having been rationalised by individuals other
than those who had found the fossils."
(New Scientist, 4th August 1988)

For this tome we used the famous icon of the "March of Progress" in the Time-
Life book published in the 1960's as a guide and we examined each of the figures
in turn leading up to the group of archaic humans in the lineage of man that was
published.

Today evolutionists shun this universally recognised icon like the plague. It
was however what people had been led to believe over a hundred years or more of
evolutionary propaganda and it had been put together by Francis Clark Howell
who was Professor of Anthropology at Chicago at the time of writing the book,
before becoming a Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of
California, Berkeley. He died of cancer in 2007 at the age of 81. The University of
California said of him, "Francis Clark Howell, one of the giants of
paleoanthropology and the first to bring fields such as geology, ecology and
primatology to bear on understanding human origins" [1]

It is no good evolutionists whining and crying foul because Howell was one of
their own and a highly respected professional. The book was written at the time
as a fair and honest appraisal of what was known at the time as William Howells

197
 Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University said in the introduction to
the book, "I think that only an anthropologist can see with what skill Professor
Howell has combined the new knowledge with his own experience to draw a fair
and honest picture of what we know and what we can say." [2]

After the 1960's it became evident to evolutionist scientists that things were
getting out of hand and that the current presentation of their theory was, to put it
mildly, a mess. Perhaps the Time-Life "March of Progress" icon was a wake-up-
call as to how bad things were. The icon may have fooled the gullible public but
within their closed community there was dissension in the anthropologist ranks.
The problem was that someone finds a tooth, a jawbone, a cranium etc and all of
a sudden a new evolutionary ancestor has been born. He is given a new name, a
new genus and is slotted in somewhere in the evolutionary family tree. Then later
it is moved around, nullified by another find, claims and counter-claims are
made and before long confusion reigned supreme.

Philip L. Stein and Bruce Rowe describes in their book for students, Physical
Anthropology about the confusion with the interpretation of the fossil record.

"Much of the confusion on interpretation of the fossil record is the

result of the incorrect usage of scientific nomenclature... With each
new find, a new debate begins over its placement in the evolutionary
scheme... The discovery of a new fossil is a highly emotional
experience, and a new find becomes more significant if it can be said to
represent a new species rather than simply another specimen of an
already known species." [3]

To make matters worse leading proponents of evolution vented their

frustrations upon each other in public. "How can practitioners in this field
possibly expect to be able to accurately identify fossil species based upon a few
teeth, jaws, and lower faces in light of what we know about the great variation
found among different individuals in a single living species?" said Tim D. White
of the University of California.

When in 2001 anthropologists at the University of California-Berkeley

discovered the fossilised remains of what they claimed were humanity's earliest
known ancestor in the Middle Awash River Valley of Ethiopia this just added to
the confusion. It was described as humanity's earliest known ancestor, a creature
that walked the wooded highlands of East Africa nearly six million years ago.
However, it challenged the existing theories about the ancestral lineage of
humans as a French team was keen to point out.

The California-Berkeley team reporting the discovery in the twelfth issue of the
journal Nature was led by two Ethiopian scholars: Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an
anthropologist still working on his doctorate at the university and Giday
WoldeGabriel, a geologist now at UC's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New

198
 Mexico. The ancestor of man that they discovered they called Ardipithecus
ramidus kadabba or Ardi for short.

The San Francisco Chronicle headlined the discovery as "FOSSILS FROM

ETHIOPIA MAY BE THE EARLIEST HUMAN ANCESTOR". [3] This did
not sit well with another team of anthropologists. Earlier in January, a French
team headed by Brigitte Senut and Martin Pickford found fossils in Kenya that
they dated about 5.8 million years old, from a creature they nicknamed
"Millennium Man." Pickford said the newly discovered fossils in Ethiopia are
"virtual contemporaries." [4]

It was left to David Perlman of the Chronicle to say, "The world of

paleoanthropology is highly contentious, and scientists have been trying for
many decades to sort out the murky ancestry of today's human race by
comparing thousands of fossil bones and skulls. But no evidence is certain and no
lineages are clear." [5]

"No evidence is certain, no lineages are clear"! That is exactly the problem was
after one hundred and fifty years of painstaking research and the interpretation
of fossils that were usually just mere fragments. How can evolutionists possibly
expect to be able to accurately identify fossil species based upon a few teeth, jaws,
and lower faces? But this is what they have claimed to have done.

Dr. Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University

tells us why evolutionsts exaggerate their finds.

"...I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you
were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of
head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to
exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." [6]

It is no good evolutionists whining and crying foul because Howell was one of
their own and a highly respected professional. The book was written at the time
as a fair and honest appraisal of what was known at the time as William Howells
Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University said in the introduction to the
book, "I think that something needed to be done to rationalise and consolidate all
the different individual "proofs" for the evolution of Man into a more easily
understood structure, one that could gain general consensus."

It is clear to an unbiased mind that the current model for the evolution of Man
is beset with insurmountable problems. It did not help that the great publicity
machine was still portraying the evolutionary ancestors of man as grunting,
idiotic apes, pure and simple. The box office hit 2001: A Space Odyssey the 1968
science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick was still being
released in 1974, 1977, and again in 1980 showing grunting ape men at the dawn
of human history.

199
 Difficulties with the evolution of man are many. First the old theory was that
the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo
erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species had
evidently lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at
least half a million years.

In 2000 Richard Leakey had found a Homo erectus complete skull within
walking distance of an upper jaw of the Homo habilis, and both were therefore
dated from the same general time period. That made it unlikely that Homo
erectus had evolved from Homo habilis. In other words, one or the other could no
longer be considered the ancestor to the rest of the genus Homo.

Likewise, scientists used to think that Homo sapiens had evolved from
Neanderthals but by the 1980's it was universally acknowledged that Neanderthal
Man, Cro-Magnons and modern Homo sapiens were contemporaries. Obviously
then modern humans could not have evolved from Neanderthals. And to make
matters worse, Cro-Magnon had some superior qualities to that of modern man
such as being taller, more robust and having a larger brain. So in the end he was
reassigned and integrated with the genus Homo sapiens because he was in all
respects human.

Then there was the problem of what to do with the Australopithecines. They
looked more apelike than human, and they all had the pronounced saggittal crest
common living apes. If for example it was assumed that Australopithecus boisei
was a direct ancestor of man then one had to accept that the saggital crest was
lost almost as soon as it was gained. "This example illustrates the general rule
that species having prominent unique characters (such as the saggitall crest) are
most commonly not direct ancestors of species that lack such characters", said J.
William Schopf professor of paleobiology in the Department of Earth and Space
Sciences and member of the Molecular Biology Institute at the University of
California at Los Angeles. [6]

200
 The biggest problem was deciding from where the process of the evolution of
man had begun. We have descended from apes, such was the theory but as
Scientific American reported in August 2003, there is very little evidence to go
on.

"Many fossil apes are represented only by jaws and teeth, leaving us
with little or no idea about their posture and locomotion, brain size or
body mass. Moreover, paleontologists have yet to recover any remains
of ancient African great apes." [8]

David R. Begun the author of the report then provides an overview of the
problem that evolutionist scientists face.

"Moving up the family tree (or, more accurately, family bush), we find
more confusion in that the earliest putative members of the
human family are not obviously human. For instance, the
recently discovered Sahelanthropus tchadensis, a six-million- to seven-
million-year-old find from Chad, is humanlike in having small canine
teeth and perhaps a more centrally located foramen magnum (the hole
at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord exits), which
could indicate that the animal was bipedal. Yet Sahelanthropus also
exhibits a number of chimplike characteristics, including a small brain,

201
 projecting face, sloped forehead and large neck muscles. Another
creature, Orrorin tugenensis, fossils of which come from a Kenyan site
dating to six million years ago, exhibits a comparable mosaic of chimp
and human traits, as does 5.8-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus
kadabba from Ethiopia. Each of these taxa has been described by its
discoverers as a human ancestor. But in truth, we do not yet know
enough about any of these creatures to say whether they are
protohumans, African ape ancestors or dead-end apes.". [9]
[bold mine]

We have already seen through this book that the possible candidates for
apelike ancestors of Man, such as Pliopithecus, Proconsol, Dryopithecus and
Oreopithecus were extinct apes. One candidate that was believed to be a direct
ancestor namely Ramapithecus proved to be an extinct ape too. Today, there are
no direct ancestors identified from the "early hominids" group.

Despite the many difficulties that evolutionist paleoanthropologists faced it

was time to bring the "evidence" up-to-date and see what could be salvaged from
the tangled mess that was the evolution of man. The first thing that needed to be
done was to distance themselves from the popular image as shown in the "March
of Progress". So evolutionists began to sing from same song sheet.

Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) condemned the

iconology of the image over several pages of his 1989 book Wonderful Life. In a
chapter entitled "The Iconography of an Expectation", Gould commented the old
perception about the evolution of man.

"The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution -

the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all....
The straitjacket of linear advance goes beyond iconography to the
definition of evolution: the word itself becomes a synonym for
progress.... [But] life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned
by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress".
[10]

Ian Tattersall, PhD, Curator in the Department of Anthropology at the

American Museum of Natural History in New York describes the new way to look
at the evolution of Man.

"The bushy notion of human evolution is that the human family tree
represents a rather bushy confirmation, with many side branches going
off in different directions and many terminations as well as many
beginnings. This is very different from the notion of the family tree as
being a slender trunk rising towards the apex, and it's very clear at this

202
 point that our human family tree has been very bushy in its
structure." [11]

As far as the man in the street was concerned, they did not know that things
were not going well with the theory of evolution. The illusion of stability and
certainty of the theory that man had evolved from apelike ancestors had to be
maintained, and the pro-evolutionary press made sure that a positive angle was
maintained so when news of a new hominid find was made the illusion that
evolution was founded on a sound footing was maintained. However, behind the
scenes the theory for the origins of man through the processes of evolution was
teetering on the verge of collapse.

Talking about Ardi, the article in National Geographic Magazine 1st October
2001 says it all. Under the heading, MOVE OVER, LUCY. AND KISS THE
MISSING LINK GOODBYE, we read:

"The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a
chimpanzee-like missing link-resembling something between humans
and today's apes-would eventually be found at the root of the human
family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of
chimpanzee anatomy and behavior-long used to infer the nature of the
earliest human ancestors - is largely irrelevant to understanding our
beginnings."

Now that the evolutionists realised that no longer could they promote what
they had preaching for over a century or more was untenable, the need for a
revision of the evolution of man therefore was vital and it had to be done in such
away that the public would not know what had happened, and it had to be done
as quickly as possible and stealthily. So what they did was to redo the linear rise
from apes to man scenario into one of the branches of a tree, where some
branches had become dead-ends.

As evolutionists doctored the traditional proofs of the evolution of man to the

deficiencies of the theory, the revisionists made a fatal mistake. After the changes
were made using a tree as a pictorial guide, it turned out that very little had
changed at all. All that was presented was done in a different way, with one
exception. Much of what was claimed as evolutionary ancestors in the past were
no longer represented in the new evolutionary order and very little if anything
has filled the gaps that were left behind. If fact it transpired that the evidence to
support the evolution of man was even worse now than it was in the 1960s. But
don't take my word for it. This chapter brings the reader up-to-date with the
latest evolutionary thinking and you are going to be surprised by how little has
really changed. It is just that many of the proofs of evolution promoted by
evolutionists over the previous hundred years or more have - gone!

203
BBC HUMAN FAMILY TREE
Currently on the website of the BBC (February 2012) there is an impressive
family tree of human evolution described as "A diagram showing the evolutionary
relationships between humans, prehistoric apemen and chimpanzees" [12] Note
that the term apemen is still being used. Now if we look at what is presented,
although the way it presented is different compared to that which was depicted in
the "March of Progress" in truth it is really just the same. Let us take a closer look
and let me show what I mean.

If we now extrapolate the information from the family tree what do we see?
Cro-Magnon man is no longer shown, because he has been integrated into Homo
sapiens. Neanderthal Man is no longer shown as an ancestor of man but is
represented as an off-shoot from the same ancestor that Homo sapiens evolved,
namely Homo heidelbergergensis. The next direct ancestor of man is that of
Homo habilis, while Homo erectus once considered a direct ancestor link, has
now been put aside in a side branch. This is understandable because as we have
discussed he coexisted with Homo habilis, therefore he could not be a direct line
ancestor of man. Likewise, Homo floresiensis, often called the Hobbit, for
reasons I shall explain later, is also deemed an off-shoot of Homo habilis and has
become an evolutionary dead-end too.

The next direct ancestor of man is unknown. It is assumed that he exists but so
far he has not been found. Both the Australopithecus and Paranthropos groups
are now identified as extinct apes are said to be side branches from the imaginary
direct ancestor of man and other evolutionary dead-ends. Likewise, there is no
direct ancestor to what are called early hominids, meaning early extinct apes.
With this information and using the BBC human family tree as a guide we can

204
 actually create a linear family tree along the lines of the "March of Progress".

A remarkable change had taken place. Only two direct evolutionary links are
now identified as being ancestors of man and these are Homo habilis and Homo
heidelbergergensis. The other direct links are unknown and therefore are missing
- the missing links are still missing. While evolutionists flounder around looking
for one, after one hundred and fifty years of searching, what is shown on the BBC
human family tree is all they have to show for their efforts. This is extremely
embarrassing. So much for the overwhelming evidence often touted by
evolutionists. However, let us not jump the gun yet. Let us be fair and see if this
family tree is one that is generally accepted or as has often been the case in the
past, one of many interpretations evolutionists have made. Fortunately, there are
a number of recent human family trees we can compare with what I have
presented here.

NOVA HUMAN FAMILY TREE

NOVA is the highest rated science series on television and the most watched
documentary series on public television in the USA. It is also one of television's
most acclaimed series, having won every major television award, most of them
many times over. In 2008 NOVA produced a television program entitled
"Becoming Human" in which anthropologist Rick Potts, a paleoanthropologist at
the Smithsonian Institution, was interviewed by the producer Graham Townsley.

Commenting on the human family tree Potts said, "The human family tree
bristles with dead branches - early hominids that, despite surviving for more than
a million years in cases like Homo erectus, ultimately died out." [13] That
comment is most informative. For decades evolutionists have told the story of
how apes became humans through a line of evolutionary transitional links, but
that story is now as extinct as the many "proofs" that were once offered. Instead,
as we saw with the BBC family tree many of the supposed evidence of the

205
 evolution of nan have become evolutionary dead ends, leaving only Homo
habilis the primary link to modern humans.

Like the BBC the WGBH Educational Foundation, a non-profit organisation

that is also a public TV station in Boston, illustrated a human family tree for the
NOVA television program. How does that illustration compare to the one offered
by the BBC? Although the way the family tree has been presented is totally
different, the content is practically identical. It does look like we have some kind
of consensus. Again no direct ancestors are shown linking the Australopithecus
and Paranthropus groups to the homo group and Homo Habilis is listed as the
direct ancestor to Homo sapiens via Homo heidelbergensis.

SMITHSONIAN HUMAN FAMILY TREE

206
 On 17th March 2010, the Smithsonian Museum marked its one hundredth
anniversary on the National Mall with the public opening of its newest exhibition
hall - the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins. This exhibition is said to be
based on decades of cutting-edge research by Smithsonian scientists, and the
result of an international collaboration with over sixty research and educational
organisations and over one hundred researchers from around the world.

According to the Smithsonian website the Hall of Human Origins offers

visitors an immersive, interactive journey through 6 million years of scientific
evidence for human origins and the stories of survival and extinction in our
family tree during times of dramatic climate instability. Cristián Samper, director
of the Museum spoke out proudly, "The opening of this hall represents one of the
most significant public and scientific achievements in the 100-year history of the
museum. Our goal is to provide visitors and on-line guests with an exciting
educational experience that will encourage them to explore for themselves the
scientific discoveries about what it means to be human." [14]

From what Samper said we should therefore be encouraged and confident to

see what the state of the origins of man through evolution has been reached after

207
 one hundred and fifty years of research and study. On entering the 15,000-
square-foot Hall of Human Origins one cannot be impressed by the sensory
extravaganza that the visitor is invited to participate. The Wall Street Journal
reviewed the exhibition and said:

"Because of the fragility of human remains, only a handful of actual

fossils are on display, diminishing the sense of wonder the real thing
always inspires. Overall, though, the Hall of Human Origins is an
educational triumph. With lucid labels and a well-conceived mix of art,
touchable casts, video and touch-screen computers, the hall ably
explains the state of the science and manages the often-elusive feat of
engaging both children and adults." [15]

Interestingly, because of the few real fossils available the museum had to
create over 200 casts of hominid fossils and artifacts, and they were very good.
Some of the most notable fossils representing human evolution included in the
exhibit were Lucy, Peking Man, the Australopithecus, a Neanderthal, Sima 5,
Turkana Boy, and much more.

The hall was also filled with a plethora of films, interactive media, and
dioramas, which helped to explain many of the nuances between each fossil. The
hall did what it was supposed to do, to beguile the audience into thinking that the
evolution of man was a fact of science, when in reality nothing could be further
from the truth. The museum uses lots of props and visual effects to drum home
their message to the gawking public, but withheld the true stories behind each
fossil cast presented. For example, how many visitors realised when they looked
at the human family tree on display how much was missing, and more to the
point, where were the direct ancestors of man that had been publicised for
decades?

John Hawks, Associate, Professor of Anthropology at the University of

Wisconsin, visited the museum in May 2010 and while he liked the exhibit and
encouraged people to visit it he did have a few issues about it. He said on his
blog:

"It strikes me that the exhibit included very few connections back to
the Miocene apes. The story of bipedality is there, and the transition to
Homo gets a good representation, but the story of the origin of the
hominins is to some extent missing the bookend from which it
begins...I don't remember a mounted chimpanzee or gorilla skeletons
to provide a comparison to the hominins. It's a bit of context that
seems missing." [16]

John Hawks is right although as an evolutionist he is not likely to admit that

208
 the story of the origins of the hominins is missing because there are none to be
found. This fact in itself is striking but few visitors will have noticed because they
will have been overwhelmed and bedazzled by the media entertainment that
surrounded them. That is the whole idea behind the exhibition, intentional or
otherwise, to cover up the failings of evolution theory through state of the art
publicity so that one will not be able to see the wood for the trees. However, an
examination of the human family tree in the exhibition is most revealing.

The Smithsonian human family tree is headed One Tree, Many Branches.
Beneath the heading makes a revealing statement, if you have the eyes to see.

"As early humans evolved, four major groups emerged. Each group
includes several distinct branches of species. For much of the six
million years of human evolution, more than one species lived on the
Earth. Over time, most of these species became extinct. Our own
species, Homo sapiens, is the lone survivor."

What the unsuspecting public may have failed to realise, three of the four
groups are in fact evolutionary dead ends and are not evolutionary ancestors of
man after all. Let us take a closer look.

Three of the groups, namely Australopithecus, Ardipithecus and Paranthropus

are shown as separate bushy branches of a tree, while the Homo group is the
bushy branch at the very top. Within each branch various hominids are depicted,
but interestingly, and I doubt visitors will have noticed, there are no links from
any of these individuals to the Homo group. In other words, there are no direct
ancestors from the other three groups to Man. In fact all the three non-Homo
groups are evolutionary dead ends, and are in fact extinct apes.

I want the reader to get their head around this. Imagine you are seeing a tree
reported to represent the evolution of man, where three of the four branches

209
 show the lineage of dogs. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? But this is
exactly what we have with the three branches of extinct apes. They have nothing
to do with the evolution of man. So what the observer is looking at is an illusion,
a magical trick designed to mislead you in thinking that evolution is true. The fact
of the matter is evolutionary dead ends do not represent the evolution of
anything.

"Evolutionary dead ends are very common in the human fossil record. In fact,
there are people who would claim that we probably don't know any direct
ancestors to Homo sapiens in that record", so says Ian Tattersall, Curator in the
Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New
York. [17]

This is clearly the case as Tattersall further observes.

"Beginning at about the 1950s the received wisdom in

paleoanthropolgy was that human evolution had been a sort of single-
minded slog from primitiveness to perfection, if you wish, without a lot
of different species being involved and with species tending to evolve
from one into another in a kind of a linear fashion. Clearly these new
findings over the last 20 years just cannot be accommodated within a
structure like that." [18]

One cannot help wondering why these dead ends are shown at all because
there are no direct ancestors of man from these extinct apes. I guess that
evolutionists have had to show something otherwise the public might get wise to
the fact that evolution is a sham, based upon a house of cards teetering on the
brink of collapse. The whole concept of evolution is that creatures evolved from
lower forms of life to complex ones, but in the case of human evolution this
evidently does not apply. Clearly as Tattersall say, these new findings over the
last twenty years just cannot be accommodated within a structure like that.

The Smithsonian family tree follows the other family trees that we have
already discussed, but let us take a look at another one, just to makes sure that
we truly have consensus.

210
BERKELEY HUMAN FAMILY TREE
We have taken a look at three of the latest human family trees that have
appeared in recent years and I am sure the reader will have seen that, although
they are presented differently, they do appear to be consensus in their
presentation. Before we take a look at the remaining "ancestors" of man and
whether they are of any significance, we will just look at one other human family
tree just to make sure that what we have is what evolutionists have decided is
their current understanding of their theory with respects to the origins of Man.

The human family tree that we shall take a look at is the one available on the
University of California, Berkeley website. It can be found under a story
published 1st October 2009 headed ETHIOPIAN DESERT YIELDS OLDEST
HOMINID SKELETON. The story talks about the discovery of Ardi by an
international team of scientists today who reconstructed a partial skeleton of the
hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, which they say revolutionises our understanding
of the earliest phase of human evolution. [19]

211
 First, did you notice the question mark between the Australopithecus and
Homo groups in the Berkeley family tree diagram? Again we are shown that a
link between the two groups is missing. This agrees with the other human family
trees that we have discussed earlier. However, there is one significant difference
between the Berkeley tree and the others. Homo sapiens are linked to homo
erectus and homo erectus is linked to homo habilis.

The other trees correctly record to the fact that homo erectus coexisted with
homo habilis and therefore could not possibly have been a transitional link or a
direct ancestor of man. The other trees suggest instead that homo sapiens
descended from Homo heidelbergensis, who in turn was descended from Homo
habilis. Have you got that?

Generally speaking all four recent human family trees are in agreement, at
least with respects to the earlier hominid groups as of 2010. What is important
for the reader to understand is that they have been sold the idea that man had
descended from apelike ancestors and through a series of improvements man
evolved to the being he is now. The problem is that after one hundred and fifty
years of research there is no evidence for such transitions in the fossil record so
another story has had to be fabricated to keep the evolutionary show on the road.
Hence, the Berkeley University education website reveals the difficulites arising
from the split between the chimpanzee lineage and that of our own six million
years ago.

"About six million years ago in Africa, the chimpanzee lineage and our
own split. What happened to us after that split? The hominid lineage
did not march in a straight line to Homo sapiens. Instead, the early
hominid lineage gave rise to many other (now extinct) hominids." [20]

What we have seen are evolutionists clutching as straws trying to justify the
belief in their theory. "The early hominid lineage gave rise to many other (now
extinct) hominids," we are told. Do you not see? All this time evolutionists have

212
 been investigating the variations of species of extinct hominids (apes) and not
the evolution of Man. And while they now say "The hominid lineage did not
march in a straight line to Homo sapiens", how is it that when we come to the
Homo group we see that homo sapiens descended from Homo heidelbergensis,
who in turn from Homo habilis? What is going on? The answer is simple. With
no identifiable ancestor of man linked to the extinct apes evolutionists are stuck
in a boat without a paddle - and that boat is sinking fast.

We keep returning to the fact that after one hundred and fifty years of
searching evolutionists have found very few fossils to substantiate their theory
and those that have been found have been mostly fragmentary and open to any
interpretation. The National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report
entitled Understanding Climate's Influence on Human Evolution of 2010
highlights this fact under the heading "THE FOSSIL RECORD: AN
INCOMPLETE HISTORY" by saying:

"Science has provided a general understanding of the timing of major

events in human evolution, but a paucity of fossils, particularly over the
most interesting periods of rapid evolutionary change, has made it
difficult to interpret what has influenced or controlled these
events" [21]

This report merely repeats what other experts have said and which are
reported elsewhere in this book.

213
MARCH OF PROGESS 2010
We have reached the year 2010 and from the human family trees that we have
seen we can build a new "March of Progress" for this year, by ignoring the side-
branches and following the main trunk of the tree. What do we find? The fossil
record contains two basic types of hominids: those that can be classified as
apelike and those that can be classified as modern humans. But this leaves a
distinct break in the morphology of apelike species and human like species that is
not bridged by our knowledge of the fossil record. Put another way, there are no
identified apelike ancestors of man that can bridge the gap between the
Australopithecus group of extinct apes and Homo habilis, generally regarded as
an evolutionary direct ancestor of man.

This is a disaster for those who support the theory of evolution because
without such a bridge, a common ancestor connecting the two, ape and man,
there can be no evolution. It is that simple. Darwin described the perceived lack
of transitional fossils in his day as "the most obvious and gravest objection which
can be urged against my theory" and he is right. Without them his theory cannot
stand up and it does not. After one hundred and fifty years of searching nothing
has really changed. Darwin's theory has failed the test of time.

Evolutionists have now changed their tune. They say when asked, that it is
almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a
direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that
produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process

214
 producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the
fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil
record can be identified as a direct ancestor of any other. Yet if we look within the
Homo group in the human family trees we have discussed above we do see direct
ancestors shown as a linear process. We see that Homo habilis leads to Homo
heidelbergensis from whom Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are said to have
evolved, although each following different "evolutionary" paths with one being a
dead-end.

Evolutionists hide the fact that three out of the four groups that they have now
revamped as side branches (bushes) of the human family tree belong to extinct
apes and do not have any bearing on the evolution of man. There is no
transitional link between any of these groups. The branches of the tree hides the
fact that the last Homo group still follows an evolutionary linear progression
(primitive to modern) even though they deny this to be the case. Homo habilis to
Homo heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens or Homo Neanderthal - what is that if
not linear progression?

What all this boils down to is that evolutionists cannot get away from the fact
that their cherished theory simply does not add up, even with the new changes to
the human family tree that they have introduced. Let us take a look at this new
linear progression, the "March of Progress" of 2010, starting with Homo habilis
and see if this holds up to scientific scrutiny.

HOMO HABILIS
From the human family trees we have examined it appears that Homo habilis
played the key role as the primary direct ancestor of man. Previously, Homo
erectus had filled that role, but when it was found that he had coexisted with
Homo habilis, one of them had to go and Homo erectus got the short straw. He
was relegated to a side and extinct branch of the Homo group. Besides, as I have
already demonstrated in this book the evidence was that Java Man and Peking
Man (Home erectus Asia) were in fact homo sapiens which meant therefore that

215
 they could not be direct ancestors of man.

Let us now take another look at Homo habilis to see if he can justify his
position as a direct ancestor of man. We were told that Homo habilis lived from
approximately 1.4 to 2.33 million years ago. The discovery and description of this
species is credited to both Mary and Louis Leakey, who found a lower jaw
complete with teeth at their excavation site in the Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania in
1960 (OH 7). Also found were more than twenty fragments of the left hand and
because some rocks that looked like crude stone tools were found nearby, it was
assumed that these had been made and used by Homo habilis - hence the
nickname "handy-man" given to the hominid. Of course, there was no proof that
the stone tools, if that is what they were, had been made by the individual, whose
lower jaw had belonged to. It was just assumed that he had made them. Making
assumptions like this is a typical unscientific way in which evolutionists work.

As I said before Homo habilis ("Handy Man") was so named because he was
judged to have used stone tools. This was at the time a significant criteria because
evolutionist anthropologists believed the ability to use tools separated modern
humans from all other living things. This though has been shown to be nonsense.
Scientists have discovered that chimpanzees use rocks to hammer open nuts and
twigs to fish out termites from mounds and if the rocks are thrown against one
another they will chip just like those found at the Olduvai Gorge excavation site
where OH 7 had been found. Furthermore, scientists have shown that tool use
was not limited to apes. Monkeys, birds, sea otters and even octopuses
manipulate objects to get what they want. The idea that the ability to use tools
separated modern humans from all other living things is not based upon any
sound science. It is just another example of evolutionists trying to prop up their
theory with fudged science.

As to what Homo habilis looked like is clearly open to speculation right from
the start because a lower jaw, teeth and other bone fragments was all that
scientists could go on. However, that did not stop the press from magically
drawing up pictures to represent this new ancestor of man based upon these
fragments. As expected, the early reconstructions showed a rather hairy apelike
creature even though no skeleton body parts had been found and nothing was
known about the skin colour and body hair of the hominid. It always amazes me
how evolutionists have the uncanny ability to morph into being an apelike
creature through a motley collection of bone fragments scattered kilometres
apart, fit them together with miraculous dexterity and call the result a direct
ancestor of man and then dare to call this science.

216
 One would have expected that for Homo habilis, which has been defined as a
direct ancestor of man, that there would be overwhelming evidence to support
such a claim. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is
that very few fossil bones that have been found that have been assigned to Homo
habilis. Furthermore, they have come from fragments mostly found in the
Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, often kilometres a part and at different levels.

For example a fumor (thigh bone) identified as KNM-ER 1472 was found in
1972 and it is identical to one of modern man. However, because the fumor was
found in the same stratum where some Homo habilis fossil fragments had been,
albeit a few kilometres away from them, the thigh bone was assigned to that
hominid. The result was that it led to the false interpretation that Homo habilis
was bipedal, able to walk upright. However, the fossil OH 62, discovered in 1987,
showed that contrary to what had been thought Homo habilis was not bipedal.
This was very embarrassing. The fumor KNM-ER 1472 was therefore quietly
reassigned under the classification Homo erectus, even though it was
indistinguishable from the thigh bone of modern man. Why was it not deemed to
be that of a modern man one may ask? That would certainly upset the apple cart
if it was wouldn't it? So the fumor was shoved under the carpet so to speak and
conveniently forgotten.

It is true that over a period of time more fossil fragments were found in the
Olduvai Gorge and assigned to Homo habilis. It was said that these helped to put
together a better understanding of the appearance and morphology of Homo
habilis. However, contrary to expectations it turned out that "handy-man" was
unlike any of the species found in the Homo genus. He was short and had
disproportionately long arms compared to modern humans. In fact the arms
were typical of apes like chimpanzees. However, he had a less protruding face
than the australopithecines extinct apes and had a cranial capacity slightly less
than half of the size of modern humans. The small size and rather primitive
attributes of Homo habilis led some experts (Richard Leakey among them) to
propose excluding Homo habilis from the genus Homo, and to rename him as
"Australopithecus habilis". [22]

217
 A 1999 paper published in the journal Science by two leaders in the field
explained that "Homo" habilis should not even be considered a member of
Homo, but he should be part of the australopithecine group due to its ape-like
skeletal structure. [23]

More recently, in 2000 the Institute of Human Origins agreed with this view.

"Taking into account body size and shape, locomotion, the masticatory
system, and brain size, some scientists suggest that H. habilis had an
adaptive strategy more similar to australopiths than to modern
humans and should be placed within the genus Australopithecus." [24]

But of course to relegate habilis to the genus Australopithecus would mean

that it was an extinct ape like all the rest of that group and another so called
direct ancestor of man would be lost. This would make the theory of the evolution
of man even more precarious that it already was. So it has had to remain in the
Homo group even though it should not be there.

Clearly, there is no consensus about Homo habilis being in the Homo group
even though in the human family trees that we looked at we see him boldly
shown as a direct ancestor of man. Furthermore, there are so few remains of
Homo habilis and those that do exist consist of only of a few fragments, which is
hardly the overwhelming evidence needed to support the idea that this hominid
was a direct ancestor of man. Hence, when we read what is published in
archaeologyinfo.com and read "The species is a mishmash of traits and
specimens, whose composition depends upon what researcher one asks" one
cannot but wonder why Homo habilis can ever be called a direct ancestor of Man.

The full text of what the website says is as follows.

"Homo habilis is a well-known, but poorly defined species. The

specimen that led to the naming of this species (OH 7) was discovered
in 1960, by the Leakey team in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. This specimen
and its designation was the subject of much controversies up through
the 1970s. The material was found in the same region where A. boisei
had previously been found, and many researchers of the time did not
fully accept that the material was sufficiently different from that
material (or maybe A. africanus) to denote a new species. Louis Leakey
was convinced that this was the Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life
looking for, and placed this as a direct human ancestor, with H. erectus
a dead-end side-branch.... It is particularity hard to list the features of
Homo habilis, because the specimens attributed to habilis (and the
reasons the material was placed there) vary widely. The species is a
mishmash of traits and specimens, whose composition depends upon
what researcher one asks." [25]

218
 "The species is a mishmash of traits and specimens, whose composition
depends upon what researcher one asks." Does that not inspire confidence? Such
comments are not unique. According to Milford Wolpoff, author of a number of
palaeontology books, habilis has been used 'as a garbage bag' for fossils by some
scientists.[26] Tattersall and Schwartz made a similar comment describing
Homo habilis as an 'all-embracing "wastebasket" species into which a whole
heterogeneous variety of fossils could be conveniently swept'.[27]

I am sure the reader by now is wondering how, under these circumstances,

Homo habilis achieved his direct ancestor status. I wonder that myself. Perhaps it
would be a good idea to take a look at the fossil evidence reputed to belong to
Homo habilis and see if this can shed some light on the puzzle. Perhaps the
evidence really is "overwhelming" - but I wouldn't hold your breath!

OH 7 (the original Homo habilis discovered by Mary and Louis Leakey 1960 at
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.
- a lower jaw complete with teeth. Also found were more than 20 fragments of the
left hand.

OH 24 - (Twiggy) discovered in October 1968 at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.

- is a roughly deformed cranium with a brain volume just under 600 cc.

KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis?) discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972

at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey 1973)
- an almost complete skull with a brain size estimated at 750 cc, larger that one
would expect for Homo habilis. A number of leg bones were found within a
couple of kilometers, and are thought to probably belong to the same species.

KNM ER 1813 (discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973) -

a relatively complete cranium

KNM ER 1805 (discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Paul Abell in 1973)

- The individual was an adult at the time of death, as evidenced by the third
molar.

STW 53 (discovered by Alun Hughes at Sterkfontein in South Africa in in

1976.
- a number of cranium fragments including teeth were discovered. Many rocks
interpreted as being stone tools were found in the same layer.

OH 62 (discovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1986)

- partial skeleton was discovered with 302 fragments of fossilised tooth and bone.

OH 65 (discovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in 1995)

- an upper jaw with all of its teeth and part of the lower face

219
HABILIS - PROBLEMS & PROBLEMS
Having looked at the so called overwhelming evidence for Homo habilis shown
above the reader must find it incredible that with so few remains of this hominid
that many evolutionist paleontologists could regard him a direct ancestor of man.
But even these bone fragments are subject to heated debate.

For example, the observant reader may have observed from the picture above
that KNM-ER 1470 is missing. Why? First the brain case of this individual was
much larger and less robust than any habilis skull and it was surprisingly modern
- too modern in fact. To make matters worse it was originally dated at nearly
three million years old, a figure that caused a great deal of confusion at the time
as it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis was
supposed to have descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued
(Lewin 1987; Johanson and Edey 1981; Lubenow 1992).

Then there was human like thigh bone found a couple of kilometres away from
where KNM-ER 1470 had been excavated (how scientific is that?) was a key to
believing that Homo habilis was bipedal. However, the fossil designated OH 62,
discovered in 1987, showed that contrary to what had been thought Homo habilis
did not walk upright. Consequently, the thigh bone assigned to KNM-ER 1470
could not have belonged to him. It was probably from a modern human after all.

The apelike characteristics of OH62 also raised concerns about the facial
appearance of KNM-ER 1470, which was described as modern. The skull of
KNM-ER 1470 had only small eyebrow ridges, no crest, and a domed skull. The
large cranial capacity was much larger than so-called apemen skulls and although
it was difficult to measure because of the condition of the assemblage, it was
estimated to be around 800 cc (later lowered to 750 cc). These traits and the

220
 wrongly associated human thigh bone were thought to be more typical of the
human condition especially as he had a "flat" face that lacked the usual
"protruding prognathous" (where the mouth parts point forwards) of the
australopithecines.

Such a modern looking skull, as the original reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470

showed when it was published in 1972 together with it being dated at an older age
than many other much older looking australopithecines was a conundrum. This
just was at odds with the prevailing paradigm.

Alan Walker and Pat Shipman, anthropologists at Pennsylvania State

University were suspicious that the reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 was
incorrect. Writing in their book "The wisdom of the bones: In search of human
origins" published in 1996 they wrote:

"The face was oriented "in a position that emphasised the large brain
and advanced, humanlike features of the skull… but I thought this was
wrong. I wanted to swing the face out at an angle, because to me 1470's
large face made it look like a big-brained australopithecine". "I felt,
rightly or wrongly, that they [the Leakey team] were trying to squeeze
the anatomy to fit their preconceived theory rather than shaping the
theory to fit the anatomy". [28]

Writing in 2008 Timothy Bromage, an anthropologist at New York University

said, "Based upon our preconceptions of what craniofacial traits to expect in a
Plio-Pleistocene representative of the genus Homo, the KNM-ER 1470 skull was
originally assembled with a relatively large brain and vertically oriented
face." [29]

As a consequence, the skull of KNM-ER 1470 was reconstructed to be very

apelike. Also the cranial capacity based on the new construction was downsized
from 752 cc to about 526 cc. Bromage said his team's reconstruction included
biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise
relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.

221
 Bromage also made a damning comment:

"In this research we became more than usually aware of the tendency
we have (as humans) for limiting our perceptions of morphology as a
result of preconceived notions.... We feel that paleoanthropology has
been particularly given to the combination of perceptual bias and its
associated Gestalt rules from which major paradigms based on
interpretations of morphology are formed. The reconstruction of KNM-
ER 1470 presented here is an attempt to constrain our bias and modify
the Gestalt perspective, albeit one with a view to empirical support that
was heretofore unavailable." [29]

In other words, Bromage was honestly acknowledging the bias that

evolutionist anthropologists have when interpreting fossils so that they twist the
evidence to support their specific evolutionary theories. As Walker said, Leakey's
team squeezed the anatomy to fit their preconceived theory rather than shaping
the theory to fit the anatomy. This is not science. It is sleight of hand.

It was clear that KNM-ER 1470 could not be classified as Homo habilis. So
what did evolutionists do? They created a new taxon, and called him Homo
rudolfensis. The Smithsonian website says of it:

"There is only one really good fossil of this Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER
1470, from Koobi Fora in the Lake Turkana basin, Kenya. It has one
really critical feature: a braincase size of 775 cubic centimetres, which
is considerably above the upper end of H. habilis braincase size. At
least one other braincase from the same region also shows such a large
cranial capacity. Originally considered to be H. habilis, the ways in
which H. rudolfensis differs is in its larger braincase, longer face, and
larger molar and premolar teeth. Due to the last two features, though,
some scientists still wonder whether this 'species' might better be
considered an Australopithecus, although one with a large brain!" [30]

222
 Reassigning KNM-ER 1470 to Homo rudolfensis has created even more
problems. It means that Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, in addition to
Homo erectus, were contemporaries in the early Pleistocene of eastern Africa. It
is little wonder then that the theory of the evolution of man is in such a mess and
that evolutionist are floundering in the quicksand upon which their theory was
founded.

Issues with the other fossils of Homo habilis have also come to light. For
example, the debate as to the correct classification of KNM ER 1805 has existed
ever since it was discovered.

KNM ER 1805 was originally placed in the Homo erectus classification but
based on the degree of prognathism and the shape of the cranium (especially the
prominent nuchal crest), it was considered to belong in Homo habilis. However,
a study by the Laboratory paleoanthropology and prehistory at the College of
France disagreed with this assessment.

"Our preliminary results based on the crania (not on the mandible or

teeth) demonstrate that KNM ER 1805 possesses a number of unique
features that differentiate it from other hominids. This specimen is
not an appropriate morph for early Homo, and should not be
considered an average male Homo habilis for the clandistic
analyses, and the morphological comparisons". [31] [bold
mine]

Can things get any worse for Homo habilis? Yes it certainly can! Reappraising
STW 53 Walter W. Ferguson of the Department of Zoology of the Tel Aviv
University makes a revealing statement.

"Reappraisal of its putative hominine affinity reveals a closer

resemblance to Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925. The skull, as
reconstructed, is too small for H. habilis; with no indication of brain
expansion over A. africanus; has a facial angle outside the hominine
range, but identical with that of A. africanus; and whose teeth are not
elongated but display buccolingual expansion. Although it was found in
the same strata (Member 5) as stone tools, there is no causal
connection. It has been dated faunistically at 2-1.5 my BP, but due to
an unconformity it is suggested that it could be older. In spite of its
late date, Stw 53 shows no intermediate characters which
could support a trend towards H. habilis or A. robustus
Broom, 1938. It may, therefore, represent a relict population of A.
africanus." [32] [bold mine]

223
 All this means is that the few fossils supposedly endorsing Homo habilis as a
direct ancestor of man have got fewer and fewer. In fact there are hardly any left!
I think it can be said with reasonable certainty that Homo habilis is not a direct
ancestor of man, and I believe what is written on the Australian Museum website
is a fair assessment of that view.

"Homo habilis was the earliest of our ancestors to show a significant

increase in brain size and also the first to be found associated with
stone tools. These characteristics resulted in this species' placement
into the human genus, Homo. However, this classification is now being
debated because new fossil discoveries show this species shares some
important physical similarities with members of the Australopithecus
genus... This species was initially considered to be a direct ancestor of
modern humans but fossil discoveries in the mid-1980s showed that
Homo habilis had rather ape-like limb proportions. This evidence led
to a reassessment of Homo habilis and its relationship to modern
humans. Many scientists no-longer regard this species as one of our
direct ancestors and instead have moved it onto a side branch of our
family tree." [33]

Need I say more? The reader must agree that Homo habilis under such
circumstances cannot be regarded as an direct ancestor of man. In fact he should
not be even be in the Homo group at all? He is better placed with the extinct apes
of the australopithecines.

We now move on to Homo heidelbergensis, who is supposed to have been the

ancestor of both homo sapiens and Neanderthals. Is there any justification to
suggest that this is true?

224
HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS
In a previous chapter I said that the classification of Homo heidelbergensis
seems to be applied to a motley collection of human remains that does not appear
to fit in the general evolutionary scheme of things. I am not the only one who has
made such an observation.

Science writer James Shreeve in 1995 referred to the taxon as "more like a
bushel basket into which you throw everything that is neither clearly erectus, nor
obviously modern Homo sapiens" [34] Yet, according to the latest human family
trees, Homo heidelbergensis plays a significant role in the evolution of Man. He
is a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens (modern man including Cro-Magnon Man)
and Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man). Homo heidelbergensis in turn
is supposed to have descended from Homo habilis, but as we have seen, the latter
is very unlikely to be a direct ancestor of Man so Homo heidelbergensis
apparently just appeared from nowhere.

The story of Homo heidelbergensis and his rise to the position of direct
ancestor of man is extraordinary, one that is typical the way evolutionists put two
and two together and make three. Give a fossil a name, and if later it does not fit
the status quo, move it somewhere else, hide it or dump other non-conformist
fossils into the same classification.

If you may recall the original discovery of this hominid began with the
excavation of a very large jawbone (Mauer mandible) from the Mauer sandpit, six
miles from Heidelberg.

"This important discovery was made as the result of a prolonged and

225
 intensive search. For many years the digging in the Mauer pit (for
industrial purposes) had attracted widespread interest among
geologists, because the 80 feet of cut surface revealed, with
diagrammatic clearness, a series of twenty-four strata, the lower
(Pleistocene) members of which had provided an interesting series of
fossil remains of extinct mammals to determine the ages of the various
layers. Dr. Otto Schoetensack, of the University of Heidelberg, had
been watching the excavations in the Mauer pit for many years, when,
on October 21, 1907, the owner of the pit, Herr J. Rosch, was able to
inform him that the search of twenty years had been rewarded by the
finding of the lower jaw of primitive man." [35]

It is incredulous to think that one could define a human ancestor based upon a
single jawbone but that is what Dr. Schoetensack of the University of Heidelberg
did. He called his "ancestor" Heidelberg Man, now called Homo Heidelbergensis.
Schoetensack said that the jawbone was older than Neanderthal Man. He argued
that the Mauer fauna was much older than one's known from the late Pleistocene
such as those found with Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon fossils, but he probably
said this because of his belief that the jawbone belonged to a primitive individual
and therefore being primitive it had to be very old.

Some anthropologists believed that Schoetensack had found a missing link

between Java Man and Neanderthal Man. In fact as already seen the 1924 book
"Men of the Old Stone Age" by Henry Fairfield Osborn, there is a diagram of an
evolutionary tree illustrated and in it we find that Heidelberg Man preceding
Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon and finally Homo Sapiens.
Already in 1924, a human family tree along the lines of "March of Progress" of the
1960s was taking shape which would grow to become a familiar icon in years to
come.

Since the discovery of the Heidelberg Man jawbone Java Man, Peking Man
(Asia), Rhodesian Man (Africa) and Swanscombe Man, Boxgrove Man, Steinheim
Man (Europe) have been classified as belonging to the Heidelbergensis taxon.
The features of these were such that they were not quite the same as
Neanderthals, nor Homo sapiens, but appeared to have the traits of both, hence
the belief that Homo Heidelbergensis was a direct ancestor of man. Nobody, in
the evolutionist camp were prepared to consider that what they were seeing was
simply the typical variations that occurs within a species, which has nothing to do
with evolution.

There are difficulties with the suggestion that all Homo heidelbergensis
remains were the ancestors of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. In 2009 the
Journal of Human Evolution said that the Asian group of Homo heidelbergensis
should be discounted and should be confined to a strictly European species that
is part of the Neanderthal lineage.

226
 "The discovery of new fossils in Africa, Asia, and Europe, and the
recognition of a greater diversity in the middle Pleistocene fossil
record, has led to a reconsideration of the species Homo
heidelbergensis. This nomen, formulated by Schoetensack in 1908 to
describe the Mauer jaw (Germany), was almost forgotten during most
of the past century. Numerous fossils have been attributed to it but no
consensus has arisen concerning their classification. The holotype
anatomical traits are still poorly understood, and numerous fossils with
no mandibular remains have been placed in the taxon. Some
researchers propose H. heidelbergensis as an Afro-European taxon that
is ancestral to both modern humans and Neandertals whereas others
think it is a strictly European species that is part of the Neandertal
lineage." [36]

WILL THE REAL HEILDELBERGENSIS STAND UP

The assemblage of fossils found around the world and attributed to Homo
heidelbergensis could easily be the variations within the Neanderthal or even
Homo sapiens species. Just because they may show the traits from both species
of human does not mean that Homo heidelbergensis was an evolutionary
ancestor of either of them. However, some scientists ignore this possibility and
believe that Homo heidelbergensis were really proto-Neanderthals (or even
Neanderthals) that lived in Europe.

Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Department of Human Evolution is one of many who describe the controversy of
Homo heidelbergensi and his position in the evolution of man.

"H. heidelbergensis has been the subject of controversy, with some

researchers placing it within H. erectus, and others recognising it as an
archaic form of our own species, H. sapiens. More recently, it has been
accepted as either the last common ancestor to both Neanderthals and
modern humans, spanning Africa, Europe and perhaps Asia, or as a
chronospecies of the Neanderthal lineage restricted to Europe." [37]

G. Philip Rightmire, Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New

York, joins the dissentingly voices opposed to the mainstream view of evolution
with respects heidelbergensis.

"Just as there is controversy about whether Homo erectus should be

partitioned into two taxa, so there are questions about the make-up of
Homo heidelbergensis. Some authorities hold that the European and
African specimens should be set apart as representatives of distinct
lineages. Proponents of this view agree that the French, German, and

227
 Greek fossils share a series of features with the hominids from Bodo
and Broken Hill. But they claim that even the earliest Middle
Pleistocene Europeans exhibit apomorphic traits that align them only
with Neanderthals." [38]

Were Homo heidelbergensis direct ancestors of Man and Neanderthals or were

they just a subspecies variation within the Homo neanderthalensis group? An
incredible discovery in Spain may have provided the answer. In 1990 potholers
exploring the cave system of the Cueva Mayor at Atapuerca came upon a macabre
spectacle. At the bottom of a thirteen metre (forty-three foot) deep chimney
reached by scrambling down an inclined passage 10 meters in length which
opened onto a chamber measuring 15 square meters they found themselves
amongst the debris human and animal remains.

One of the potholers brought back a few fragments of human bone and gave
them to the University of Madrid. Juan Luis Arsuaga who is professor in the
Palaeontology Department of the Faculty of Geological Sciences at the university
immediately saw that a great discovery was in the making.

Excavations began immediately, at Sima de los Huesos (the pit of bones) and
within two years Arsuaga and his team had uncovered two complete human brain
cases. Ribcages, leg bones and jawbones were also dug up. Arsuaga tentatively
identified the remains as belonging to Neanderthals and therefore dated the finds
as being 300,000 years old. In 2001 Arsuaga wrote a book entitled "The
Neanderthal's Necklace" in which he said that the individuals at the Sima site
were Neanderthals or proto-Neanderthals and that it was very unusual to find so
many Neanderthal skeletons in one place. He suggested that they may have died
at the same time, perhaps because of famine or disease. [39]

228
 Since then, the remains of twenty-eight bodies have been dug up, and the site
has become the world's greatest single haul of ancient human fossils. During this
time, Arsuaga and his team pushed back the dates of their finds to 600,000 years
ago and assigned them as belonging to Homo heidelbergensis. The dating was
not done on the fossil remains themselves but was based upon the calculated age
of a stalagmite found just above the human remains using natural uranium
isotope dating methods. The Sima scientists argued that the fossils must have
been older than the stalagmite as it appeared to have grown over the sediment
containing the bones. Because the stalagmite was dated as being 600,000 years
old, this was the reason and the only reason why the remains were catalogued as
Homo heidelbergensis and not Homo Neanderthalensis.

Many scientists began to question the dating of the Sima remains and
eventually things came to a head when in June 2012 a news report in the
Observer and Guardian newspapers in England ran a story headed,
SCIENTISTS ARE ACCUSED OF DISTORTING THEORY OF HUMAN
EVOLUTION BY MISDATING BONES. [40] The newspapers reported that
Britain's leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the
Natural History Museum, had warned in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology
that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by
200,000 years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found
there. He believed the pit was filled with Neanderthal remains that were no more
than 400,000 years old. Stinger's criticism was supported by Phillip Endicott of
the Musée de l'Homme, Paris.

Yolanda Fernández-Jalvo and Peter Andrews, working at the Natural History

Museums of Madrid and London respectively also disagreed with Arsuaga. They
argued that the absence of small bones was best explained by assuming the
bodies came from elsewhere in the cave system and had been washed their by
flood waters. Fingers and toes would have been lost under such circumstances
when the skeletons were swept into the pit where the stalagmite could already
have formed.

"If complete bodies were thrown in there, you would expect to see every piece
of human anatomy down there," Stringer had said. "But you don't. A lot of
skeletal parts seem to be missing." However, Arsuaga rejected this analysis. He
said, "You can call [the fossils] early Neanderthals or give them another name, it
does not matter. I prefer to give a different name." Arsuaga was sticking to his
guns but he admitted the 600,000-year age his team had put on the Sima fossils
did look too early. "We are working on that," he said. [41]

Arsuaga's arrogant attitude is a typical response by evolutionist

anthropologists when their pet theories are challenged. Commenting on the
newspaper report, David Rabada, a paleontologist from the Geological Museum
of the Barcelona, agreed with Stringer and said that in Spain there were lot of
scientists who disagreed with Arsuaga et al. but it was difficult for them to
publish their own theories because "these kinds of papers are sent to Arsuaga et
al. who reject these new proposals." In other words Arsuaga and members of his

229
 team censor anything that conflicts with their views. Rabada has though
posted his report on his own blog. This is what he has to say.

"The Sima de los Huesos fossiliferous site was originated between

205,000 and 325,000 years ago (Parés et al., 2000) but other
investigations talk about 400,000 and 500,000 years ago (Bischoff et
al., 2003; Bermúdez de Castro et al., 2003). This fossil site is located at
the end of a dark gallery of 400 meters where it opens a chasm of 13
meters high (Arsuaga et al., 1993; Arsuaga et al., 1997). Inside the cave
only predators have been identified including a group of hominids.
These were attributed initially to archaic Homo sapiens (Arsuaga et al.,
1993; Bermúdez de Castro et al., 1997) but later they were identified as
Homo heidelbergensis (Pérez et al., 1999). The high variability found in
the Sima de los Huesos site indicates that Neanderthals contain the old
heidelbergensis without any taxonomical problem (Arsuaga &
Martínez, 1999). At the moment these authors keep the name
Homo heidelbergensis instead of Neanderthal in their
publications for practical reasons but not taxonomical
(Arsuaga & Martínez, 1999)." [bold mine] [42]

According to the book Human Evolution: Neanderthals & Homo sapiens by

Jon Schiller ninety percent of known H. heidelbergensis remains come from the
Sima de los Huesos site. [43] However, if the only reason why Arsuaga dated the
remains at Sima de los Huesos at 600,000 years of age and thereby assigning
them to the taxon Homo heidelbergensis was based on the casual dating of a
stalagmite, one has to hold up one's hands in disbelief. It is incredulous that
anyone can accept this hypothesis on such flimsy evidence.

I think it is quite clear that having declared that the remains belong to Homo
heidelbergensis, Arsuaga would find his reputation tarnished if he was to
backtrack and declare them Neanderthals. As Rabada says, Arsuaga and his team
have kept the name Homo heidelbergensis instead of Neanderthal in their
publications for practical reasons, meaning to save embarrassment for being
wrong, and not taxonomical reasons.

The idea that Homo heidelbergensis was the direct ancestor of Neanderthals
and Homo sapiens has largely been due to the interpretation of the Sima de los
Huesos fossils. Günther A. Wagner acknowledges this when writing in the PNAS
journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The hypodigm and evolutionary significance of Homo heidelbergensis

are currently uncertain, but this species is generally considered to be
the ancestor of Neanderthals in Europe. Apart from the Mauer jaw, a
massive tibia and two teeth from Boxgrove, numerous skulls and
skeletons from Sima de los Huesos, fossils from Arago Cave, and a

230
 partial jaw from Visogliano have been attributed to Homo
heidelbergensis." [44]

We now know from the evidence that the remains at Sima de los Huesos site
were in fact Neanderthals, which means that they could not possibly have been
direct ancestors of man. Consequently, by taking these out of the equation we are
left with only a few and motley collection of bone fragments that we discussed
earlier that have been collected around the world and have been dumped into the
taxon called Homo heidelbergensis.

With the Neanderthals found at remains at Sima de los Huesos that were
wrongly assigned to heidelbergensis, evolutionists are now faced with a
conundrum. For Homo heidelbergensis they have been left with only a few jaw
bones, two teeth and the inner and thicker of the two bones of the human leg
between the knee and ankle of Boxgrove Man as well as fossils from the Arago
Cave in France (which have actually been given the extinct hominid taxon Homo
erectus).

This leaves evolutionists with an embarrassing situation. The few remains

assigned to heidelbergensis is barely worth considering. To claim
thatheidelbergensis then is a direct ancestor of man in human evolution is
ridiculous. Rather than admit their embarrassing failure in finding evidence for
the evolution of man, evolutionists have had to make up a story to justify their
continued belief in their theory and to convince the public that all is well. I shall
leave it to Arsuaga to explain what this is all about.

"Species are assigned to natural groups or clades. According to this

school of thought, it cannot be known if one fossil species is the
ancestor of another, be it a fossil or living, because no one can travel to
the past and thereby trace the steps of evolution. All that can be
scientifically established is the degree of kinship between species, and
that is precisely what cladogram reflects. Clandists consider
hypothetical evolutionary trees to be purely speculative and lacking
scientific vigour." [45]

Those who have adopted the new evolutionary model are called Cladists and
theirs is the nearest confession I have come across that actually denies the
validity of the origins of man through evolution which has been taught for
decades. They simply will not go any further than to construct cladograms and
these are based exclusively on morphological information, so they are not
affected whether a species exists, or is a fossil, or if it comes from Africa. [46]

Now the reader knows the truth why recent human family trees, especially that
from the Smithsonian, show groups (clades). Evolution is dead, but evolutionists
have too much to lose to admit that they are wrong. And so the show goes on -

231
 and the theory of the evolution of man remains still in a mess. There are no
recognisable transitional links between the apes and man, no evolutionary
human lineage. There are just clades of primarily extinct species of apes to show
for over a hundred and fifty years of research.

Atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a best selling book entitled "The God
Delusion". Published in 2006, Dawkins contends in the book that a supernatural
creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies
as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of
strong contradictory evidence. That contradictory evidence he refers to is that
shown by evolution. Now we know the truth of the matter. It is the theory of
evolution that is the delusion and it continues with the greatest deception of all.
Neanderthals were not the dull-witted, brutish, ape-like creatures who walked
hunched over with a shuffling gait that have been taught for decades by
evolutionists.

232
 Chapter 9
THE TRUTH ABOUT NEANDERTHALS

"Research by UK and American scientists has struck another blow to the theory
that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) became extinct because they were
less intelligent than our ancestors (Homo sapiens). The research team has
shown that early stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo
sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. Published in
the Journal of Human Evolution, their discovery debunks a textbook belief held
by archaeologists for more than 60 years."
(Steve Connor, Science Daily, 26th August 2008)

In the previous chapters we learned how much evolutionists have relied upon
hundreds of bone fragments such as isolated teeth, some jaw bones, a few skulls
and craniums, and miscellaneous bones from various parts of the body to support
their theory. We also learned that many of these remains turned out to be really
nothing more than extinct apes or other primates. In fact if we were to take out of
the equation the four-hundred or so Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains, then
to be honest, there is really nothing much to go on but wishful thinking and a lot
of imagination.

In some cases because of the meagre evidence to support the evolution model
some highly regarded anthropologists out of desperation resorted to deceptive
measures to "prove" a theory where no proof could be found. One deception
(Piltdown Man) took forty years for it to be exposed as a fraud by which time it
had been shown in hundreds of publications as evidence for the evolution of

233
 man. It helped to persuade a gullible public that man had descended from the
apes. However, evolutionists are guilty of an even greater deception, perhaps the
greatest deception of them all.

THE GREATEST DECEPTION OF THEM ALL

Evolutionists may say that the Piltdown Man deception was one of a kind, and
such things do not happen any more. I disagree. Perhaps the greatest deception
of them all, one which has had the greatest impact upon society. It is the one that
was perpetrated by the famous French anthropologist Professor Marcellin Boule,
and the repercussions of which reverberate to this very day. This particular
deception catapulted the belief that man had descended from the apes in the
public conscience more that anything else. What was that deception? That
Neanderthals were dull-witted, brutish, apelike creatures who walked hunched
over with a shuffling gait and were our ape-man ancestors.

If the reader may recall Boule studied the Neanderthal bones found at La
Chapelle-Aux-Saints in 1908 and then declared that they belonged to a dull-

234
 witted, brutish, apelike creature who walked hunched over with a shuffling
gait. And to emphasise his point and under his direction he commissioned an
illustration that was published in The Illustrated London News in 1909.

The heading of the picture made no bones as to what it represented. "AN

ANCESTOR: THE MAN OF TWENTY THOUSAND YEARS AGO". It
showed a creature glowering behind a corner with a club in one hand and a
boulder in the other, waiting to attack. The image was not intended to be a
hypothetical rendition of the La Chapelle individual. Rather, it was described as
being "accurate".

During the first decades of the twentieth century Boule's vision of who or what
Neanderthals were prevailed. Museums all over the world promoted Boule's
image of the ape-man to the general public like no tomorrow. If a person had any
doubts that man had descended from the apes visitors entering Chicago's Field
Museum of Natural History would have been obliged to pass between a
frightening pair of life-sized statues of a very bestial appearing Neanderthal
couple. They are still there today. They have simply been moved to the second
floor near the dinosaur skeletons, where they will continue to fuel the
imaginations of school children for years to come.

235
 Many books were written describing Neanderthals along the lines of Boule's
interpretation. The book A Short History of the World by H.G. Wells did much to
popularise that image. His book published in 1922 and was the first general
history that was constructed on an evolutionary, sociological and anthropological
basis. [2] It became the model for history books thereafter. In the book Wells he
gives a casual description of Neanderthal Man which help to conjure up in the
minds of the reader, what kind of creature he was.

"We cannot guess what this Neanderthal man looked like. He may
have been very hairy and very inhuman-looking indeed. It is even
doubtful if he went erect. He may have used his knuckles as well as his
feet to hold himself up. Probably he went about alone or in small family
groups. It is inferred from the structure of his jaw that he was
incapable of speech as we understand it." [3]

With such a description in the book of the popular author H.G. Wells, it is little
wonder that the idea that man had descended from the apes captured the
imagination of the public. Neanderthal Man therefore stood out as
incontrovertible evidence that this was true. Like an express train running out of
control people were railroaded into believing in evolution. It was taught
everywhere, in classrooms, in museums, in books, in newspapers.... there was no
limit to the evolutionist propaganda machine at work.

When H.G. Wells wrote his famous Science Fiction book The War of the
Worlds he opened it with the words, "Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are
to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool
and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely
drew their plans against us." His words were almost prophetic, except that it was

236
 not the Martians that were drawing plans against us, it was evolutionists who
wanted to change the world and convince us that man had descended from the
apes.

Not everyone fell for the deception perpetrated by Boule. Arthur Keith of the
British Museum and main proponent for Piltdown Man, the famous fraud, did
feel that Boule's depiction of Neanderthal Man was rather over the top. He said
that there were no features in the bones of the lower limbs to suggest a posture or
manner of walking materially different from those of modern man. Even so few
scientists listened to him. Besides Keith like everyone else believed that
Neanderthal Man was a direct ancestor of man, so what did it matter if the
drawing was not one-hundred percent accurate? Everyone knew that man had
descended from apes. Even today, we will find in some books, such as
"Comprehensive MCQs in Biology" published in 2005 that "Neanderthal Man:
There fossils were found in the Neanderthal valley in Germany and are believed
to be on direct line ancestry of modern man" [4] Clearly this author had not done
his research very well as we shall soon establish.

BRAINWASHING THE PUBLIC

For decades since their discovery Neanderthal's place in the evolutionary
scheme of things have been, to say the least, confusing. New Scientist Magazine
published in 1989 describes this confusion vividly.

"The Neanderthals are a case in point. First discovered during the

1850's, they were soon thought by anthropologists to be direct
ancestors of humans. Between 1910 and the 1950's, they were relegated
to a side branch. The 1960's and 1970's saw them restored to a central
position in the ancestry of modern humans. Now, another revision in
the 1980's has cast them out again." [5]

The restoration of Neanderthals as direct ancestors of man in the 1960's and

1970's owed much to Piltdown Man having been discovered as fraud and with the
gap left behind in the evolution of man family tree, Neanderthal Man took his
place. Hence, once again Neanderthals were shown to the public as a direct
ancestor of man and his appearance in the iconic Time-Life "March of Progress"
in the 1960's only confirmed that what was generally believed by the public, that
man had descended from the apes and that Neanderthals was one of the apelike
direct ancestors that led to modern man.

237
 One cannot blame the gullible public for believing in what evolutionist
scientists were saying. Even the media in all its many forms got into the act and
promoted the ape-man myth right from the start. Novels of fiction supported
what was being written in scientific journals and newspapers. Neanderthals even
appeared in H.G. Wells' 1921 short story "The Grisly Folk" in which they are
portrayed them as savage and barbaric creatures who deserved their fate of
extinction. In the short story Neanderthals are portrayed as shambling, hunched
over, and hairy beasts who are incapable of reason and prone to violence. "Wells'
description of the Neanderthals was highly influenced by Boule's 1909
reconstruction and would have been considered typical in the beginning of the
twentieth century", says writer Charles DePaolo. [6]

Edison Marshall's very popular 1935 novel "Dian of the Lost Land" featured
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons too, as traditional enemies surviving in a warm
valley of Antarctica. There were many more such tales that were published in
books over the years and similar stories continue to be published to this day
involving the Neanderthals.

238
 Then came along movies, television and DVDs and the public were again
confronted with the "fact" that man had descended or were closely linked to apes.
Films like "2001 A Space Odyssey", "The Planet of the Apes", "Neanderthal Man",
"Clan of the Cave Bear", "10,000 BC", "Year One", "Land of the Lost films" and
many more all played their part in brain washing an unsuspecting public. Not to
mention the Geico Caveman commercials. And of course just in case the message
did not get through numerous documentaries told us how we had evolved from
the apes in vivid imaginative detail. "Walking with Caveman" (BBC), "Ape to Man
and Neanderthal Man" (Discovery Channel), "A Species Odyssey" (TV PB),
"Neanderthal" (BBC), "Le'Homme de Neandertal" (French TV) or "L'odyssée de
l'espèce humaine" (Spanish TV) - to name but a few.

239
 It seemed that no matter what you did, whether you went to school, read
books, visited museums, watched movies or television you just couldn't get away
from being told that man had descended from the apes. Under such
circumstances it is not surprising that most people succumbed to the relentless
evolution propaganda bombardment and became brainwashed in believing that
man had descended from apes without realising it. So when later it became
known that Neanderthals and other "ape-men" had not been ancestors of man
there was hardly a whimper of understanding as to the ramifications of what this
meant. It just did not register in the public consciousness that what they had
been taught for such a long time had been a sham all along.

Monique Scott of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) was able
find out just how much brainwashing visitors had succumbed to after having
been saturated with a lifetime of preconceptions about human evolution and
human prehistory. She said that:

"Visitors to the AMNH come equipped with a weighty set of images

drawn from popular culture, derived from romanticized Clan of the
Cave Bear tales, Geico Caveman commercials, 10,000 BC, Year One,
and Land of the Lost films (as for the latter, a majority of museum
visitors I have surveyed were not certain whether dinosaurs and
humans co-existed. Visitors occupy the nexus between the evolutionary
folklore generated outside the museum and that which has been

240
 generated within it. Facing this constellation of hyperkinetic
evolutionary information, museum visitors must negotiate the rocky
terrain between evolutionary artistry and the rather esoteric world of
evolutionary evidence." [7]

It is exactly as Scott says. People have been saturated with a lifetime of

preconceptions about human evolution and human prehistory.

"Television programs, then, validate the museum (in this instance a

diorama from the 1960s)-reinforcing a conditioned nostalgia for a
simplified version of a complex people. Certainly, the same can be said
of the image of the Neanderthal "caveman," which relies much on the
collective museum visitor imagination - one that has been under
construction for the past one hundred years, taking shape on canvas, in
the newspaper, on the television and film, or in the museum
exhibition." [8]

It is quite likely that there are those who upon reading this book will still be
unable to shake their belief in evolution even if they came face to face with a
Neanderthal Man asking them when the next train would be arriving at the
station. The problem is that the muscular looking man, with strong facial features
and broad shoulders is so far removed from what they had been taught and
imagined, that if he said he was a Neanderthal, he simply would not be believed.
The brainwashing has just been too successful to overcome as another
anthropologist, Anne Hamilton of the University of Western Ontario, is prepared
to admit.

"Reconstructions claiming to be scientific, but still portraying a

slouched posture continue to appear in museums and publications
today. If scientists are influenced by prior reconstruction there is no
doubt that the masses are influenced. ... Individuals outside of the
scientific community may see an outdated reconstruction, like Boule's,
and take it for reality without question. This solidifies the stereotype.
As anthropologists we have a responsibility to portray Neanderthals as
they are, rather than succumbing to the stereotype, but this has proved
difficult because alternative images presented by the scientific
community have not been widely accepted by the masses (Moser 1992).
Our perceptions have been shaped by the stereotype, and just like any
bad habit, it is hard to get rid of." [9]

241
THE DECEPTION REVEALED

It was in 1956 when the Neanderthal deception began to unravel. It was on

27th December of that year, in New York City, that a symposium was presented.
It was the 123rd annual meeting of the association celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the discovery of the Neanderthal man. Among the distinguished
guests attending was William S. Straus, Jr. (Anthropologist of Johns-Hopkins
University). He and A.J.E. Cave (Anatomist at St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
London) had been permitted to examine the remains of Neanderthal Man from
Chapelle-Aux-Saints. What they discovered would change our view of
Neanderthals forever, although it would take years before the deep rooted
stereotype would be finally laid to rest.

At the symposium Straus reported that there was abundant evidence of

advanced osteo-arthritis in the La Chapelle mandible and throughout the post-
cranial skeleton. The vertebrae not only revealed marked "lipping" and
deformation, but indicated as well, significantly faulty repairs on the part of the
investigators. It was pointed out that recently Aramburg and Schultz have
seriously questioned the "naturalness of semi-erect posture in an habitually
bipedal stance." Furthermore, Aramburg has shown that modern man has
frequently the same form of vertebrae as La Chapelle proving that it was not a
Simian feature as Boule had thought. Professor Straus concluded by stating that
"there is nothing about Neanderthal man that would necessarily cause him to
walk any differently than ourselves."

In 1957 Straus and Cave described their findings in a joint paper in the
Quarterly Review of Biology under the heading, PALEONTOLOGY AND
THE POSTURE OF THE NEANDERTHAL MAN. In it they first reiterated
the status quo.

242
 "Neanderthal man is commonly pictured as but incompletely erect; as
an almost hunchbacked creature with head thrust forward, knees
habitually bent?. According to this view, he was a thoroughly
unattractive fellow who was but imperfectly adapted to the upright,
bipedal posture and locomotion characteristics of the modern type of
man." [10]

However, after a thorough investigation of the skeleton they had come to a

completely different conclusion.

"He cannot, in view of his manifest pathology, be used to provide us

with a reliable picture of a normal, healthy Neanderthalian. Not
withstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York
subway- provided he were bathed, shaved and dressed in modern
clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention
than some of its other denizens." [11]

To the embarrassment of evolutionists it was beginning to become clear that a

gross misinterpretation of the bones of Chapelle-Aux-Saints had been made by
Boule, who clearly had allowed his Darwinian prejudices to get in the way of
scientific objectivity. In other words Boule had falsified the presentation of the
evidence to provide "proof" in the evolutionary theory of the origins of man. He
had thought the low vaulted cranium and the large brow ridge, was somewhat
reminiscent of that seen in large apes such as gorillas, and so he came to the
conclusion, because of his evolutionary beliefs, that the hominid was primitive
and lacked intelligence. However, misinterpretation is one thing and perhaps it
can be forgiven but it was discovered later that Boule had also falsified the
Neanderthal reconstruction by giving it an opposable big toe like the great apes,
even though there was no such bone deformity in the remains of the Chapelle-
Aux-Saints Neanderthal Man that should or could have led to this interpretation.

The Smithsonian Natural Museum of History website admits that Boule's own
preconceptions about early humans, led him to reconstruct a stooped, brutish
creature.

"A more recent evaluation of the entire skeleton by scientist Erik

Trinkaus has shown that, while the Old Man of La Chapelle did suffer
from a degenerative joint disease, the deformation caused by this
should not have affected Boule's original reconstruction of the
individual's posture. It appears that Boule's own preconceptions about
early humans, and his rejection of the hypothesis that Neanderthals
were the ancestors of modern humans, led him to reconstruct a
stooped, brutish creature, effectively placing Neanderthals on a side
branch of the human evolutionary tree. (Boule even gave his

243
 reconstruction an opposable big toe like the great apes, but there was
no bone deformity that should or could have lead to this
interpretation.)" [12]

Boule had deceived the world with his depiction of Neanderthal Man being a
dull-witted, brutish, apelike creature who walked hunched over with a shuffling
gait. However, despite the evidence that this was not true, evolutionist scientists
made little or no effort to tell people about their error and museums, text books
and the popular press continued to promote the status quo. And so the show
went on. People continued to believe in the soundness of the evolutionary model
unaware that they had been deceived.

For another twenty years or more after Straus and Cave had made it known
that Neanderthal Man was not the half stooped ape-man who was barely able to
walk people, still believed that Neanderthals were as described in the evolutionist
books still being published. By the time many scientists (though not all) came to
be convinced that the Neanderthals were in fact more human than had otherwise
been believed, the factual damage in the popular media had been done.
Neanderthals would forever become synonymous with the low intelligent,
brutish, knuckle walking apemen. Even the name itself has found its way in the
English dictionary (primitive; uncivilised - Collins; one who suggests a caveman
in appearance, mentality, or behaviour - Merriam-Webster).

It took a long time for Straus and Cave's findings to filter through and become
accepted by evolutionist community. This was because the scientific journals that
were beginning to publicise the fact that Neanderthals stooping posture and gait
was incorrect came from other scientific disciplines. Hence, here is what B A
Wood wrote in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 1979.

"In the past 'Neanderthals' have been treated as the 'village idiots' of
the Middle Palaeolithic; indeed, a reconstruction in a Chicago museum
has been given a stoop and a facial demeanour we normally associate
with severe chromosome abnormality. This popular misconception is
due in no small way to a mistaken analysis of the posture and gait of
the 'Neanderthal' remains from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, but a more
recent analysis of the material' demonstrated severe arthritic changes
in the cervical spine, and a review of anatomically 'normal' specimens
indicates that the posture of these undoubtedly highly muscular people
was no different from that of modern man." [13]

Slowly and surely word was getting out that Neanderthals were not the dumb
apelike ancestors of man that people had been led to believe as Kyle Jarrard of
the Huffington Post readily points out. "No more can we say that old
Neanderthal - prototype of shaggy man with absolutely zero smarts - didn't know
what he was doing. And no more can we deny it: They were not a little bit like us

244
 but a lot. As Professor David Frayer, Neanderthal expert at the University of
Kansas, puts it, with not a little hint of told-you-so scientific glee, 'Seemingly with
every new journal issue, the gap between Neanderthal and modern human
behaviour closes.'" [14]

It is now time that we take a look at some of the new evidence that not only
upgrades our view of Neanderthals but also shows that by virtue of them
coexisting with Homo sapiens, that they could not be either ancestors of man or
evolutionary dead ends. They were in fact, as we shall learn later, hybrids
resulting from the mating with Cro-Magnons (Watchers) and human women.

NEANDERTHALS WERE FAR FROM STUPID

One of the traits attributed to Neanderthals was that they were less intelligent
than humans. For more than sixty years, textbooks have taught that
Neanderthals became extinct because of this factor. Because of their (supposed)
idiocy, humans beat them in the arms race. It was said that man developed stone
weapons and tools that were (assumed) to be more efficient than the
(supposedly) less advanced tools used by Neanderthals. As a result humans won
out, and Neanderthals became extinct.

"In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them,
Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you
will," says Fred Smith, a physical anthropologist at Loyola University in Chicago
who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. "They were believed to be scavengers
who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought."
Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals "were highly intelligent, able
to adapt to a wide variety of ecological zones, and capable of developing highly
functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished."[14]

Roger Dobson writing in the Guardian Newspaper in 2002 and reporting on

the findings of a team of German researchers said that Neanderthals were just as
clever as we are.

"Neanderthals were not dumb, lumbering idiots after all. New evidence
suggests that they had considerable technical and intellectual skills, as
well as ingenuity, to put them on a par with modern humans." [15]

The Washington Post in 2007 made a similar comment.

"Although Neanderthals live in the public imagination as hulking and

slow-witted "Alley Oops," Trinkaus and others say there is no reason to
believe they were any less intelligent than the newly arrived 'modern
humans.' Neanderthals were stockier and had larger brows, sharper

245
 teeth and more jutting jaws, but their brain capacity appears to have
been no different than that of the newcomers." [16]

It was now becoming apparent that Neanderthals were capable of producing a

wide range of sophisticated tools which suggests that they possessed a high
degree of technical and manual abilities, comparable to those of modern humans.

THEIR BRAINS WERE BIGGER

We now know that Neanderthals were just as intelligent as we are, but could it
be that they were even more intelligent? For decades it has been the evolutionist
argument that the greater the capacity of the brain the more intelligent the
individual would be. For example, R. Lynn of the University of Ulster writing in
the journal Human Evolution in 1990 made the following comment.

"The brain size of hominids has increased approximately threefold

during the evolution of the hominids from Australopithecus to Homo
sapiens. It is proposed that the principal reason for this increase is that
larger brains conferred greater intelligence, and greater intelligence
conferred a selection advantage. It is proposed that the principal
reason for this increase is that larger brains conferred greater
intelligence, and greater intelligence conferred a selection
advantage." [17]

Lynn then carried out a study entitled, "The evolution of brain size and
intelligence in man." His concluding remarks were, "Evidence is reviewed, and
new evidence from two studies is presented, to show that brain size as measured
by head size is positively correlated with intelligence as measured by intelligence
tests." [18] So according to Lynn, brain size correlated with intelligence.

246
 According to Lynn and other evolutionists brain size correlated with
intelligence. But if that was the case how does one explain that Neanderthal brain
capacity was greater than modern humans. A Neanderthal brain volume equals
or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200
to 1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans
(Stringer and Gamble, 1993). On this basis Lynn's study would suggest that
Neanderthals were more intelligent that we were, which of course would go
against what evolution has taught for decades. Imagine an ape-man ancestor
being more intelligent than we were. Darwin would turn in his grave at the very
thought.

I think it prudent to accept that Neanderthals were just as intelligent as

modern man, and leave it at that. One thing is for certain. They were not the
lumbering idiots that people have been led to believe for goodness knows when.

THEY DID MORE THAN GRUNT

Another myth promoted by evolutionists was the idea that Neanderthals being
ape men had limited communications skills and relied on grunts and hand
gestures to communicate with each other. It was said that they lacked the ability
to talk as we do and that they had no language.

This myth arose because when Neanderthals were first discovered it was more
or less assumed they were a brutish forebear to humans and humans were the
apex of creation and nothing else approached us. In addition, the view that
Neanderthals couldn't speak was reinforced by the lack of any evidence that they
even had the physical capability of speech. H.G. Wells in his book "Outline of
History" is quite adamant that Neanderthal Man could not speak. "It is inferred
from the structure of his jaw that he was incapable of speech as we understand

247
 it." Other writers said the same.

Today the evidence is mounting that Neanderthals were just as capable of

language as we are. The first indication that they could speak was the finding of
an intact Neanderthal hyoid bone. This bone is a horseshoe-shaped bone situated
in the anterior midline of the neck between the chin and the thyroid cartilage. At
rest, it lies at the level of the base of the mandible in the front and the third
cervical vertebra (C3) behind. Unlike other bones, the hyoid is only distantly
articulated to other bones by muscles or ligaments. The hyoid is anchored by
muscles from the anterior, posterior and inferior directions, and aids in tongue
movement and swallowing. The hyoid bone provides attachment to the muscles
of the floor of the mouth and the tongue above, the larynx below, and the
epiglottis and pharynx behind.

The discovery of a modern-looking hyoid bone of a Neanderthal man in the

Kebara Cave in Israel led its discoverers to argue that the Neanderthals had a
descended larynx, and thus had human-like speech capabilities. [20] Baruch
Arensburg, professor of Anatomy, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv
University, and colleagues argued their case in Nature magazine in 1989.

"THE origin of human language, and in particular the question of

whether or not Neanderthal man was capable of language/speech, is of
major interest to anthropologists but remains an area of great
controversy. Despite palaeoneurological evidence to the contrary,
many researchers hold to the view that Neanderthals were incapable of
language/speech, basing their arguments largely on studies of
laryngeal/basicranial morphology. Studies, however, have been
hampered by the absence of unambiguous fossil evidence. We now
report the discovery of a well-preserved human hyoid bone from
Middle Palaeolithic layers of Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel,
dating from about 60,000 years BP. The bone is almost identical in size
and shape to the hyoid of present-day populations, suggesting that
there has been little or no change in the visceral skeleton (including the
hyoid, middle ear ossicles, and inferentially the larynx) during the past
60,000 years of human evolution. We conclude that the morphological
basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed
during the Middle Palaeolithic." [21]

Some pro-evolutionist anthropologists were not convinced that even with a

hyoid that Neanderthals had language capabilities. This is understandable
because it takes a lot of courage to admit that for decades what they had taught in
schools and presented in text books and museums had been wrong. Then in 2007
a different line of research proved that Neanderthals were capable of language.
Announced in newspapers and science journals around the world, headlines such
as the one in National Geographic News, 18th October, 2007 with the heading
NEANDERTHALS HAD SAME LANGUAGE GENE AS MODERN

248
 HUMANS appeared.

"Neandertals might have been able to talk like us, a new genetic study
suggests. A team of European researchers tested Neandertal bones
recovered from a Spanish cave for a certain gene, called FOXP2, that
has been dubbed "the speech and language gene. It's the only gene
known so far that plays a key role in language. When mutated, the gene
primarily affects language without affecting other abilities. The new
study suggests that Neandertals (often spelled Neanderthals) had the
same version of this gene that modern humans share-a different
version than is found in chimpanzees and other apes." [22] From the
point of this gene, there is no reason to think that Neandertals did not
have language as we do," said the study's lead author, Johannes Krause
of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig,
Germany. [23]

THEY MAY HAVE BELIEVED IN THE AFTERLIFE

When I was a child I had some pets and when they died I buried them at the
bottom of the garden, covering them over with flowers. I cried but my parents
told me that they went to heaven and so I was comforted. Of course I now know,
as I enjoy my Sunday Lunch eating a piece of roast beef (a piece of dead cow) that
what my parents told me was untrue, yet I am convinced through my researches
(another story to be told in a book) that for us humans death is not final and that
our lives continue albeit existing in a different form and with our cognitive
processes and memories intact. So when my family and relatives die, I will still
grieve for them and will be present at their funerals to pay my respects and to

249
 wish them a final farewell until my turn comes and I join them in the afterlife.

Thoughts of the afterlife is a characteristic of the human species and one must
be capable of abstract thought and reasoning to appreciate this fundamental
human concept. Without such abilities, the concepts of life and death or a God
could not be imagined. Evolutionists have long argued that Neanderthals having
descended from the apes and therefore being primates they were incapable of
such concepts, just as living apes do not have such capabilities today. However,
more and more scientists, knowing that Neanderthals were very much like us and
capable of speech, are coming around to the idea that they shared in the belief of
the afterlife.

Graves from Europe and western Asia gives a strong indication that the
Neanderthals were the first hominids to bury their dead. In some cases the
buried bodies were accompanied with meaty animal bones. Other times with
flowers, and in some cases useful objects such as tools, these suggest that some
Neanderthal groups may have had a belief in some kind of afterlife. In a larger
proportion of Neanderthal burials, the corpse had its legs and arms drawn in
close to its chest, which is a sleeping position known as the foetal position. Many
think this indicates a ritual burial position, preceding a rebirth. And there may
even be strong evidence of family graves as some Neanderthal families appeared
to have been buried together, just as we do in modern society.

The aforementioned evidence suggests that perhaps the Neanderthals had

some sort of preoccupation with death. It is clear that like modern humans they
were self-conscious beings and this in itself can bring about an awareness of
death and the meaning and implications of death. And this awareness of death
embodies our ideas, as it probably did theirs, on God, religion and an afterlife.
They, like so many religions of today saw death not as the end, but merely the
beginning of a new cycle of existence.

In contrast evolution is an atheist philosophy. Consequently, any suggestion of

life after death is one that evolutionists would take issue with and would say that
there was more to Neanderthals burying their dead than just disposing them so
as not to leave their corpses rotting on the surface of the ground for animals to
feed on. Perhaps the corpses were buried with flowers to mask the smell of
rotting flesh they argue. However, the evidence is mounting that early man and
Neanderthals performed the same kind of burial rituals as we do today, as Julien
Riel-Salvatore, Ph.D., assistant professor of anthropology at the University of
Colorado, Denver, points out.

"Both early humans and Neanderthals put bodies into pits

sometimes with household items. During the Upper Paleolithic, this
included ornaments worn by the deceased while they were alive. When
present, ornaments of stone, teeth and shells are often found on the
heads and torsos of the dead rather than the lower body, consistent
with how they were likely worn in life. Some researchers have used
burial practices to separate modern humans from Neanderthals," said

250
 Riel-Salvatore. "But we are challenging the orthodoxy that all
modern human burials were necessarily more sophisticated than those
of Neanderthals." [24]

A recently uncovered Neanderthal burial site in Spain has provided intriguing

evidence that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife and were capable of complex
symbolic thought. The site appears to be a burial ground for three Neanderthals.
There's good evidence that their peers buried them intentionally, as all their
hands were placed close to their heads. Other Neanderthals have been found
buried in that particular same position, perhaps indicating a broader cultural
meaning for this practice. The three Neanderthals were found buried under piles
of rocks evidently put their by family members. In addition it is not beyond the
realm of possibility that Neanderthals chose certain caves to use as burial places,
which would account for the fact that so many of their remains have been found
buried in caves.

Michael Walker, a professor in the Department of Zoology and Physical

Anthropology at the University of Murcia, and his colleagues have been working
at the site for some time. So far they have found buried articulated skeletons for a
young adult female, a juvenile or child, and an adult male Neanderthal. He said
that, "I think there is just enough evidence at Sima de las Palomas to think that
three articulated skeletons are unlikely to have been the result of a single random
accident to three cadavers that somehow escaped the ravages of hyenas and
leopards, which were present at the site" [25]

The debate that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife or even God will be one
that will continue for many years to come. This is because evolution is an atheist
philosophy and to admit that Neanderthals may have believed in God is one that
has many ramifications that evolutionists are unwilling to face. For example it
would raise the ultimate question, namely why would Neanderthals believe in
God unless they knew that there was a supernatural entity that fulfilled that role.

I leave this particular topic with a comment found on the Smithsonian

National Museum of Natural History website.

"Neanderthals made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools,

controlled fire, lived in shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled
hunters of large animals and also ate plant foods, and occasionally
made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence that
Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even
marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers. No other primates,
and no earlier human species, had ever practised this sophisticated and
symbolic behaviour."

NEANDERTHALS USED SOPHISTICATED TOOLS

251
 It has long been thought by evolutionists that Neanderthals died out because
early humans who coexisted and competed with them were intellectually and
technically more advanced. This advantage enabled humans to create and use
advanced stone technologies that gave them competitive edge over Neanderthals.
Once again such an assumption is now questioned. Archaeologist Metin Eren
from the University of Exeter is one of many scientists that disputes this scenario.

"The belief that Homo sapiens was more intellectually advanced than
Neanderthals has persisted for decades... Our research disputes a
major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens
were more advanced than Neanderthals. It is time for archaeologists to
start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct
while our ancestors survived. Technologically speaking, there is no
clear advantage of one tool over the other. When we think of
Neanderthals we need to stop thinking in terms of 'stupid' or 'less
advanced' and more in terms of 'different'." [26]

Eren and his team of researchers recreated wide stone tools called "flakes",
which were thought to have been used by both Neanderthals and early modern
humans. "They also reconstructed "blades" - a narrower stone tool later adopted
by Homo sapiens. Some archaeologists often use the development of stone blades
and their assumed efficiency as evidence for the superior intellect of our species,"
said Metin Eren. The team analysed the data to compare the number of tools
produced, how much cutting edge was created, the efficiency in consuming raw
material and how long tools lasted. What did they find? They found no statistical
difference in the efficiency of the two stone technologies. In fact in some respects,
the flakes favoured by Neanderthals were even more efficient than the blades
adopted by modern humans.

Professor Chris Stringer, head of the Department of Human Origins at

London's Natural History Museum is one of many scientists who now
acknowledge that Neanderthals were not stupid, but were very capable in using
tools to their advantage. He said that, "There are now very few
paleoanthropologists who consider the Neanderthals to have been 'stupid', or
who consider that they died out because they made flake rather than blade tools."
Stringer, who was not connected with the study, added: "We know that the
Neanderthals were very capable technicians, and that their tools would have been
excellent for activities such as butchery, working skins or wood". [27]

A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

There are more revelations about our new understanding of Neanderthals to
be told but these will be discussed in the last chapter of this book for reasons that
will become obvious then. In the meantime the reader should now be in the
enviable position to know the truth about Neanderthals. They were not the
apelike ancestors of man that evolutionists have promoted for over a century or

252
 more. Neanderthals were just like us. They lived in nuclear families and
discoveries of elderly or deformed Neanderthal skeletons suggest that they took
care of their sick and those who could not care for themselves. It is also now
generally accepted that Neanderthals buried their dead, although whether or not
they believed in God and the afterlife remains controversial - at least to
evolutionists that is.

It is now known that Neanderthals had the capacity for language, the large size
and complex nature of their brains makes it a likely possibility. The discovery of a
Neanderthal hyoid and the language gene in their DNA adds considerable weight
to this hypothesis. We also know that Neanderthals used stone tools similar to
and sometimes more sophisticated than the ones used by early humans,
including blades and scrapers made from stone flakes. As time went on, they
created tools of greater complexity, utilising materials like bones and antlers.
There is even reports that Neanderthals used a type of glue, and later pitch, to
attach stone tips to wooden shafts, creating formidable hunting spears.

It is well established that Neanderthals had some control of fire. They were
primarily carnivorous although recently scientists have found that Neanderthals
actually ate cooked vegetables fairly regularly. There is also evidence to suggest
that they occasionally resorted to cannibalism. What all this means is that the
way Neanderthals lived was no different from that of early humans. Erik
Trinkaus, a prominent paleoanthropologist and expert on Neanderthal biology
and human evolution, said that "Detailed comparisons made between
Neanderthal remains and modern human bones show that there is no difference
between the anatomy or movement, tool usage, level of intelligence or ability to
speak of Neanderthals and those of modern human beings." [28]

This chapter was aimed at proving that the evolutionist model for
Neanderthals promoted by evolutionists for decades was completely erroneous.
Now you know the truth. During the last twenty years, Neanderthals have been
restored to their rightful place in human history. They were human just like us,
only different. They were neither our direct ancestors nor were they apelike
hominid cousins. Neanderthals just happened to exist at the same time as us,
only to die out in mysterious and sudden circumstances. But then where did they
come from? How did these obvious human like individuals arise, as if apparently
out of nowhere, fully formed? All will become clear soon.

The author will now start to put the pieces of the jigsaw together and
demonstrate that the Neanderthals were in fact the Nephilim that was described
in the Bible. However, there is one obstacle that stands in the way. According to
Genesis and the Book of Enoch, the Nephilim are described as giants, and in this
Neanderthals were certainly not. How does one explain this discrepancy? This is
what the next chapter investigates.

253
 Chapter 10
THE NEPHILIM WERE GIANTS. WRONG!
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,
the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
(Genesis 6:4 KJV)[bold mine]

The pictures at the top of this chapter are fakes. They were created by the
software programme Adobe Photoshop graphic editor as part of a contest of
graphic creativity on the photo contest site Worth1000.com. They were then
lifted from the site and posted on the Internet. Before long the pictures had gone
viral and for a time many Christians believed that what they were seeing was
evidence for the "giants" as described in the Bible. They had been misled. Not
only were the pictures fakes but the Bible does not say that the Nephilim were
giants either, as we shall now demonstrate.

When the original Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Neander valley in
Germany in 1856, Christians at that time believed that the Bible spoke of giants
in Genesis. Reading the King James Bible which was commonly used at the time,
at first glance this translation of the Torah in 1611 does say at Genesis 6:4 that

254
 there were "giants in the earth in those days". There can be no getting away
from it. Consequently, as Neanderthal bones and others were discovered it was
clear that they did not belong to any giants. Consequently, they were ignored by
scientists who were both creationists and Christians. However, had the scripture
been checked in the Hebrew, the original language in which it was written, then it
would have been found that there is no mention of giants. But it was too late. The
belief that the Nephilim were giants opened the door for the theory of evolution
to gain a foothold when otherwise it might not have happened.

GENESIS 6:4 - IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

The reader may consider me crazy when I say that Genesis 6:4 does not say
there were giants, when clearly if you open the pages of the King James Bible at
that verse we do find the phrase "giants" written. However, if we now turn to
Bible translations of modern times, we find that the phrase "giants" is no longer
found. Instead we read "Nephilim" for "giants". What is going on?

For example, The New International Bible renders the same verse as:

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward -
when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had
children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of
renown." (Genesis 6:4, NIV)

The New International Version of the Bible is the brainchild of an engineer

working with General Electric in Seattle by the name of Howard Long. Long was
a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his
friends he was distressed to find that it just didn't connect. He was also aware
that the King James Bible was far from perfect. It had texts within its pages that
were not found in early manuscripts, either Greek or Hebrew. For example, at 1
John 5:7-8 we read

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that
bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and
these three agree in one." (1 John 5:7-8 KJV)

However, in the New International Version and others we read:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and
the three are in agreement.
(1 John 5:7-8 NIV)

255
 Verse 7 has clearly been embellished and added later. The verse does not
appear in the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the New
Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), the Revised English Bible, the New
International Version and many other revised versions because the quoted
passage does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts. Renowned historian
Edward Gibbon called the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book
Decline and Fall of Roman Empire. Hence the need to produce a Bible that
started from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original
languages. This is how the New International Version (NIV) was developed
driven by the passion of Howard Long.

For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters

drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a
church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations.
And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-
denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos
Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project - determining
to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start
from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original
languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church
leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.

A self-governing body of fifteen biblical scholars, the Committee on Bible

Translation (CBT) was formed and charged with responsibility for the version,
and in 1968 the New York Bible Society (which subsequently became the
International Bible Society) generously undertook the financial sponsorship of
the project. The translation of each book was assigned to translation teams, each
made up of two lead translators, two translation consultants, and a stylistic
consultant where necessary.

The initial translations produced by these teams were carefully scrutinised and
revised by intermediate editorial committees of five biblical scholars to check
them against the source texts and assess them for comprehensibility. Each edited
text was then submitted to a general committee of eight to twelve members
before being distributed to selected outside critics and to all members of the CBT
in preparation for a final review. Samples of the translation were then tested for
clarity and ease of reading with pastors, students, scholars, and lay people across
the full breadth of the intended audience. Perhaps no other translation has
undergone a more thorough process of review and revision as the New
International Version (NIV).

The question is why did the translators of the New International Version and
others choose to use the word "Nephilim" instead of "giants" at found at Genesis
6:4 in the King James Bible. The answer is simple. When referring to the oldest
Hebrew texts, the original language in which the Torah had been written, the

256
 word "Nephilim" was the word that had been used. The Hebrew word for
"giant" was refa'im (rapha) - and this was a completely different word than that
used where the word Nephilim as found.

We can see the use of the word "rapha" as "giant" in the Second book of
Samuel and the King James Bible translates this correctly.

And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the (rapha) giant the weight
of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he
being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. (2 Samuel
21:16 KJV)

We can also see that the New International Version retains the Hebrew word
"Rapha" for reasons of clarity, which is also correct.

And Ishbi-Benob, one of the descendants of Rapha, whose bronze

spearhead weighed three hundred shekels and who was armed with a
new sword, said he would kill David. 2 Samuel 21:16 NIV)

The important thing to note here is that the word "Nephilim" is not used in 2
Samuel 21:16 because, in this respect, Samuel was talking about real giants
whereas the word "Nephilim" has a different meaning. The words are not
interchangeable.

257
 It will be relevant before continuing with this study to refer to the famous
Adam Clarke's Commentary to see if this mammoth work, which contains six
volumes and consisting of nearly one thousand pages each and described as the
most comprehensive commentary on the Bible ever prepared by one man, might
give us some clues as to what the word Nephilim means. The Commentary says:

"It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered
seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim.
gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which
appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge,
piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous
stature, as is generally conjectured." [1] [Bold Mine]

Keep this in mind that Clarke noted that the word "giants" does not necessarily
mean "men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured."

GENESIS 6: 4 - IN THE SEPTUAGINT

Where did the use of "giants" in Genesis 6:4 come from? It appears to have
come from the ancient Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures known as the
Septuagint, the same one we discussed in an earlier chapter of this work.

For their rendering of the Old Testament, the translators of the 'King James
Bible' used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by
Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek Septuagint
or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a
Christological interpretation.

For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was
used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my
hands and feet"). Likewise, rather than use the Hebrew word "Nephilim", the
translators referred to the Septuagint rendition of "gigantes", which literally
meant "earth-born." However, in Greek mythology, there was a race of giants
called Gigantes who were the sons of Gaia (goddess of earth), a savage race of
giants who were eventually defeated by the Olympian gods. Consequently, the
original meaning of "earth-born" for "gigantes" would eventually become lost so
that later scholars misapplied the word "gigantes" instead to mean giants in the
traditional sense of the word.

258
 In "Theoi Greek Mythology" by Aaron J. Atsma we read, "The giants of Greek
mythology, or Gigantes ("the earth-born") as they are called in the Greek tongue,
were a class of oversized and ofttimes monstrous men who were closely related to
the gods. The most famous of these were the hundred Thracian Gigantes who
waged war on the gods, but there were many others besides, including the
handsome giant Orion, the one-eyed Polyphemus, and the six-armed
Gegenees." [2]

We shall learn more about the Gigantes in the last chapter of this work because
the mythology surrounding these beings are remarkably similar to that told in
Genesis and the Book of Enoch.

According to tradition the translation of the Hebrew Torah into Greek began in
the days of Ptolemy II (309-246 BC) king of Egypt who sponsored the translation
for use by the many Alexandrian Jews who were not fluent in Hebrew but fluent
in Koine Greek, which was the common language of Alexandria, Egypt and the
Eastern Mediterranean from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC until the
development of Byzantine Greek around 600 AD. The Greek version was called
the Septuagint as legend has it where seventy interpreters were involved in its
making.

Why did the Greek translators during the time of Ptolemy II replace the
children of the sons of God, the "Nephilim" with the name for the sons of the
goddess of earth, Gaia? It is when we look at the remainder of the text that we get
a clue. The scripture goes on to say, "when the sons of God went to the daughters
of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of
renown." So were the sons of Gaia. They were the Titans and were giants. It is
Josephus (37-100), the first century Romano-Jewish historian who clarifies
things for us. In his famous book The Antiquities of the Jews he writes:

"For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons
that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of
the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that
these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call
giants." [3]

259
 First it should be observed that Josephus does not describe the children of the
angels as giants but he called them MEN. Secondly, he said that "tradition is, that
these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants".
Got it? The deeds of the children of the angels RESEMBLED the acts of those
that the Grecians called giants. That is a big, big difference from them actually
being those giants of Greek mythology. This is also reinforced by the fact that
Genesis 6:4 describes the Nephilim as being "mighty men which were of old, men
of renown."

It would appear that from what we have seen so far that there is disagreement
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions for the word "Nephilim". The
Greek version renders the word as "Gigantes", meaning "earth-born", which also
happens to be the name given to the race of giants in Greek mythology, the
children of Gaia, mother earth, also meaning "earth-born". There is no
disagreement. You may be surprised to learn that both are correct. You see the
word for "giant" has several meanings in the English language and there is one
that does fit the context of Genesis 6:4 like a glove.

The best way of showing the reader what I mean is by making reference to a
movie. The movie in question stars Michael Cain who plays Joseph Stalin, Bob
Hoskyns plays Winston Churchill and John Lithgow plays Franklin D Rooservelt.
What has this go to do with this discussion? The film is called "Then There Were
Giants". Needless to say the three World War II leaders are the giants of the title
of the movie. But of course they were not physical giants but they were "mighty
men of renown", giants of their day.

It is the author's contention that this then is the way the use of giants for
Nephilim should be understood when used in Genesis 6:4. However, if this was
true, then we would expect to see the same understanding in the only other
appearance of the word Nephilim, and that is found at Numbers 13: 33. Let us

260
 take a look and see if this interpretation adds up.

NUMBERS 13: 33

The word "Nephilim" occurs at one other place in the Torah and that is at
Numbers 13:33. Here we read:

"But Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, "Let us go up at
once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it." Then the men
who had gone up with him said, "We are not able to go up against the
people, for they are stronger than we are." So they brought to the
people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying,
"The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that
devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great
height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come
from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and
so we seemed to them." (Numbers 13:33 NIV) [bold mine]

While the New International Version of the Bible and other modern
translations use the word "Nephilim", once again in the King James Bible we see
the word Nephilim replaced by the word giants:

"And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the
giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were
in their sight." (Numbers 13:33 KJV) [bold mine]

Like Genesis 6:4, the word Nephilim (giants) used in Numbers 13:33 does not
mean a person of physical size as we shall observe. If you look at the text carefully
we read the following. "We are not able to go up against the people, for they are
stronger than we are." Clearly, the spies had seen a mighty nation before them
and they were afraid to do battle with them. So what did they do? They
exaggerated what they saw and said, "The land, through which we have gone to
spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in
it are of great height".

Did you notice what the spies said? First, they said that it was "a land that
devours its inhabitants". Let's face it, land itself does not devour inhabitants, so
the meaning is obvious. If the Israelites were to attack the inhabitants of the land
they intended to invade, they would all be killed and buried in the soil. That is
what is meant by devoured by the land. Then to make the danger more potent the
spies said, "and all the people that we saw in it are of great height". What does
that mean? Did you not read it? ALL the people were of great height, not just the
sons of Anak who also lived in the land. Are we to say that all the Canaanites were

261
 giants too? Obviously not. Deuteronomy 1:28 clarifies things even more.

Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart,

saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and
walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the
Anakims there. (Deuteronomy 1:28 KJV)

"Where can we go? Our brothers have made our hearts melt in fear.
They say, 'The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are
large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites
there.'" (Deuteronomy 1:28 NIV)

The spies were clearly scaremongering when they declared that the Canaanites
were taller than the Israelites. Then they threw in their trump card. They then
exclaimed, "We even saw the Anakites there". Why was this important? The
answer is that the Anakites had a reputation for being fearsome warriors which is
described in Deuteronomy chapter 9.

Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to

possess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and
fenced up to heaven, A people great and tall, the children of the
Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who
can stand before the children of Anak! (Deuteronomy 9:2 KJV)

The people are strong and tall--Anakites! You know about them and
have heard it said: "Who can stand up against the Anakites?" (NIV)

Let us take a closer look at the Anakites and find out more about them. When
the spies came to Hebron, formerly called Kirjatharba they found the city
occupied by a clan of people who were called Anakites. Hebron was one of two
centres under Canaanite control and was ruled by the three sons of Anak,
Sheshai, Ahiman. They would later be defeated in battle by Caleb (Joshua 15:14).
Hebron was originally named after Arba, who is described as the "greatest man
among the Anakites" in Joshua 14:15. "And the name of Hebron before was
Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims." (KJV) The son of
Arba was called Anak, and when his family expanded, his clan became known as
the Anakites. They became well known for being fearsome warriors, hence the
spies using their name to frighten those to whom the reported to in the Israelite
camp.

THE GRASSHOPPER SYNDROME

The spies used the term "grasshoppers" in their final analysis. What did they
mean by this term? They said, "we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so
we seemed to them." This description has nothing to do with the Canaanites
being physical giants. The spies simply emphasised that the Israelites would not

262
 be able to go up against the Canaanites, because they were stronger than the
Israelites. Their spies suffered what is known as "grasshopper syndrome." What
this means is that they had a low opinion of themselves. They did not see
themselves as mighty men of war but thought that they were no better than
"grasshoppers" lowly bugs that crawled around on the ground to be stepped on.

Rabbi Naftali Reich, Professor of Judaic studies and philosophy at the Ohr
Somayach Tanenbaum Educational Centre in Monsey NY, explains the
"grasshopper syndrome" in greater detail.

"Let us look into this week's Torah reading for the answer. When the
spies returned from their mission, they made a very revealing
comment, "We felt like grasshoppers next to them, and that is how we
appeared in their eyes." The commentators explain that this comment
illuminates the underlying reason for the downfall of the spies. These
people did not believe in themselves. They lacked confidence and a
sense of their own worth. They felt like grasshoppers in the presence of
the Canaanites, and therefore, the Canaanites viewed them as
grasshoppers as well. This self same lack of confidence also led them to
slander the land. They saw the major obstacles that had to be
overcome, and they felt intimidated and overwhelmed. They shrivelled
within, unable to believe that they were worthy of yet another display
of spectacular miracles. And so they chose to slander the land in order
to deflect the Jewish people from their plans of conquest and to
persuade them to remain in the relative safety of the Desert." [5]

Now we have the correct understanding of the Nephilim in the Book of

Numbers, we can now move forward in our assessment of the giants described in
the Book of Genesis.

THE BIBLICAL NEPHILIM WERE NOT GIANTS

It is clear from the only two verses in the bible (Genesis 6:4 and Numbers
13:33), containing the Hebrew word "NPHLYM" (Nephilim), that they should not
have translated the word as "giants". The word for giants in Hebrew is "RAPHA"
not "NPHLYM". Furthermore, in the English language "NPHLYM" (Nephilim) is
a noun (a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and abstract idea.)
whereas the word "giants" is an adjective (a descriptive word used to describe or
identify what a noun is). Hence, even the English transliteration of "NPHLYM" in
the King James Bible and others of the same period used incorrect grammar.
Consequently, modern translations renders the word correctly as Nephilim.

The older bibles such as the King James Bible chose to refer to the Greek
Septuagint version of the Torah to render what was NPHLYM in the Hebrew.
Unfortunately, the translators of the Septuagint version, when translating from

263
 the Hebrew to Greek had a problem with the word. There was no equivalent
word in the Greek language so they chose what they thought was best. They
replaced the word Nephilim with "gigantes" meaning earth born, which of course
is what the Nephilim were as they had not been born in heaven as has their
fathers the Watchers.

Later when Genesis was being translated into English, the translators came
across the word "gigantes" in the Greek Septuagint and knowing that there was in
Greek Mythology a race of giants called Gigantes, they rendered the English
translation as "giants". This mistranslation soon had a knock-on effect as other
Bible versions of the period followed the King James Version rendition of the
word. As a consequence people reading Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 were
misled in thinking that the Nephilim were giants. Understandingly, when the
skeletons of Neanderthals were discovered in the nineteenth century theologians
did not give them a second thought. The could not be the bones of the Nephilim
because the skeletons were not gigantic in size.

It was not until the twentieth century when modern translators of the Bible
discovered the error in the translation and so the word Nephilim could be
returned to its rightful place in the Genesis account of our origins. A connection
between the Nephilim and the Neanderthals might have been triggered then but
by this time evolutionists had made up an elaborate story that the Neanderthals
were apelike ancestors of man, which has since clouded the issue. The connection
was therefore not made, but now it can.

We now know that the Neanderthals were not the apelike ancestors that had
been portrayed by the evolutionists for a hundred years or more and judging
from their descriptions, they could certainly live up to the reputation of the
Nephilim being the might men of renown as described in Genesis. These men
could only be described as giants in the sense of being mighty and powerful just
as Josephus said that their deeds resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians
call giants. But being physical giants, this the Nephilim were not.

THE GIANTS IN ENOCH

At no time does Jesus, his apostles or the writers of the books that make up the
New Testament ever make mention of the "giants" in Genesis. However, we know
that the Book of Enoch was used extensively by the early Christians and here we
do find descriptions of the "giants" described in more detail. We therefore need
to take a critical look at those references in Enoch to see if what they say alters
what we have learned from the Genesis about the Nephilim not being giants.

The book of Enoch originally written in Hebrew has not survived to our
present day. However, like the Septuagint version of Genesis, the book was
translated into Greek so by the time Jesus was born, this is what was being read
by the Jewish people. Like the Septuagint, the word "Nephilim" had been
rendered "gigantes", meaning "earth born" but as I have said earlier this meaning

264
 was lost and its interpretation became later linked to the race of giants of
Greek Mythology known by that name. Consequently, when Enoch was again
translated from the Greek first in Aramaic (Second Century BC), then Ethiopic
(Sixteenth Century AD), the word "Nephilim" is nowhere to be seen. It has been
replaced by "giants" (Greek: gigantes) which means that all existing copies of
Enoch (Greek, Aramaic, Ethiopic) are incorrect. One can be certain that the
original Hebrew version of Enoch would have used "NPHLYM" (Nephilim) just
as it does in the Torah.

In the Enoch Book of Watchers we find four references to giants in chapters 7,

9, 15 and 16. We begin with the reference in Chapter 9, 15 and 16 restored using
the Hebrew word Nephilim. As one can see by replacing the word "giants" with
Nephilim, there is nothing in the context of each passage that suggests that the
Nephilim were giants.

[Chapter 9] "And the women have born giants Nephilim and the
whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness.
And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and
making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have
ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are
wrought on the earth.

[Chapter 15] "Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal
heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the
daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the
children of earth, and begotten giants Nephilim as your sons? And
now, the giants Nephilim, who are produced from the spirits and flesh,
shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their
dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they
are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and
primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall
they be called. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their
dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the

265
 earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the giants
Nephilim afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work
destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but
nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits
shall rise up against the children of men and against the women,
because they have proceeded from them."

[Chapter 16] From the days of the slaughter and destruction and
death of the giants Nephilim, from the souls of whose flesh the spirits,
having gone forth, shall destroy without incurring judgement- thus
shall they destroy until the day of the consummation, the great
judgement in which the age shall be consummated, over the Watchers
and the godless, yea, shall be wholly consummated. And I, Enoch,
answered and said unto him: "The Lord will do a new thing on the
earth, and this I have already seen in a vision, and make known to thee
that in the generation of my father Jared some of the angels of heaven
transgressed the word of the Lord." And behold they commit sin and
transgress the law, and have united themselves with women and
commit sin with them, and have married some of them, and have begot
children by them. And they shall produce on the earth giants not
according to the spirit, but according to the flesh, and there shall be a
great punishment on the earth, and the earth shall be cleansed from all
impurity.

We now come to Chapter 7 and in this we do see what appears to be a

reference of the Nephilim as being giants. But is this correct? Let us look at this
text through three translations from the Ethiopic to English.

[Chapter 7] "And all the others together with them took unto
themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go
in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them
charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them
acquainted with plants."

"And they become pregnant by them and bore (great) giants

three thousand cubits high ...
(Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave
4. Oxford, 1976, amended by J. C. Greenfield; translation by J. C.
Greenfield. English Translation of Enoch Courtesy of the Israel
Antiquities Authority)

"And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants,

whose height was three thousand ells"
(Translated by R. H. Charles, 1906 )

"And the women conceiving brought forth giants, Whose

266
 stature was each three hundred cubits"
(Translated by Richard Laurence, 1883)

If we were take this verse at face value it is plain to see that it describes the
birth of giants who were three thousand ells (or cubits) in height. One translator
who first translated the text in 1883 says three hundred cubits, but the later
translators render it as three thousand ells.

The Biblical measure ell is equal to one cubit exactly and as one cubit was
equivalent to eighteen inches or one and one-half feet, this would mean that the
progeny of the Watchers the Nephilim would be 4500 feet in height. This is
ridiculous. If we put things into perspective, Burj Khalifa "Khalifa tower"), is a
skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and it is the tallest man-made
structure in the world, at 829.8 metres (2,722 feet). The giants described in
chapter 7 are said to be 4500 feet high, which is twice the height of the Burj
Khalifa tower. This cannot be credible as is clearly evident if we make a
comparison in the picture below.

It is obvious then that the verse in the Book of Enoch chapter 7 as described
cannot be right. If it was how can we account for hundreds of these giant
monstrosities devouring virtually all plant and animal life on the planet (v.4-5),
while Jesus makes no mention of them when he declares that "in the days that

267
 were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in
marriage" (Mat 24:38). Jesus clearly shows a complete lack of alarm regarding
the giant-induced famine that is supposed to have happened and does not
mention any giants at all. So how does one explain this absurd measurement? To
answer this apparently incomprehensible impasse we need to go back to Greek
Mythology from whence the translators obtained and used the word "gigantes"
for the word "Nephilim".

THE GIGANTES IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY

There is a remarkable similarity (albeit garbled) between the wars of the gods
described in Greek Mythology and what happened to the Nephilim
(Neanderthals) and the Watchers (also known as gods), which I shall talk about
in the last chapter of this work.

According to Greek Mythology and before the existence of mankind a great war
was fought. The war was known as the Titanomachy and lasted ten years in which
a series of battles was fought in Thessaly between the two camps of deities. These
were the children of Gaia (goddess/mother earth) based on Mount Othrys (a
mountain in central Greece) and the Olympians, twelve gods (Watchers?) who
would come to reign on Mount Olympus, the highest mountain in Greece.

After the Titanomachy, Zeus having defeated the Titans he places them in
Tartarus, the deep abyss in ancient Greek mythology that was used as a dungeon
of torment and suffering for the wicked. Tartarus was a part of Hades (the
underworld) and, in turn, below Uranus (sky), Gaia (earth), and Pontus (sea).
The place was so deep that the Roman historian Hesiod asserts that a bronze
anvil falling from heaven would fall nine days before it reached the earth. Then
the anvil would take nine more days to fall from earth to Tartarus. In The Iliad (c.

268
 700 BC), Zeus asserts that Tartarus was "as far beneath Hades as heaven is
high above the earth."

The Titans remained imprisoned in Tartarus forever, joined by others who

dared to disrespect the gods or threatened them. But Gaia was not finished with
the gods. After mankind had been created Gaia it is said was so indignant at the
fate of her former children that she gave birth to the Gigantes, that is, monstrous
and unconquerable giants, with fearful countenances and the tails of dragons.
These were the Gigantes that we discussed earlier.

Now this is where things get interesting, because often myths have hidden
within them truths long forgotten. According to the Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Biography and Mythology we read that the Gigantes were born,
according to some, in Phlegrae (i.e. burning fields), in Sicily, Campania, or
Arcadia, and, according to others, in the Thracian Pallene. It is worthy of remark
that Homer, as well as later writers, places the Gigantes in volcanic districts, and
do most authorities in the western parts of Europe. From their native volcanic
land the Gigantes made an attack upon heaven, armed with huge rocks and the
trunks of trees. [5] This is the kind of debris that gets thrown about when
volcanoes erupt, but I am ahead of myself here.

The key to unlocking the Enoch enigma of the 4500 foot giants is to be found
by looking at where the race of Gigantes originated. They were born in volcanic
districts, and were finally destroyed at the Phlegraean Fields in South Italy, the
region of the volcano Mount Vesuvius. Two volcanoes are located in the locality.
On the left is Mount Somma and to the right is the cone of Vesuvius. They are
separated by a valley called 'Valle del Gigante' (Valley of the Giant) where
according to legend one of the Gigantes, the giant Mimas, had been imprisoned
and it was his tormented movements that supposedly caused earth tremors in the
area.

Sooner or later, we are told, the Gigantes clashed with the gods of Olympus,
and this great battle, according to the ancient Greek historian and geographer
Strabo, was fought on the Phlegraean Fields beside Mount Vesuvius. The
Gigantes were defeated and those that fled found refuge with their mother (Gaia)
at the site of Leuca (in the "heel" of Italy). Strabo adds that a certain fountain at
the site is fed by a malodorous stream from the ichor (divine blood) of the giants.
The surviving Gigantes were later killed by Hercules (the son of Zeus and the
female mortal Alcmene) and who had sided with the gods of Olympus.

When we look at the Phlegraean Fields beside Mount Vesuvius, we find some
interesting facts. According to the Columbia Encyclopaedia the Phlegraean Plain
(Fields) was the fertile volcanic region, Campania, South Italy, along the
Tyrrhenian Sea between Pozzuoli and Naples. It is named for ancient Phlegra, in
Macedonia, where in mythology the battle between the giants and the gods took
place. In Roman times, the cities of Cumae, Baiae, and Puteoli (Pozzuoli) were
fashionable watering places. Some of the region's approximately 30 craters still
emit sulphurous vapours and mineral waters. [6]

269
 Talking about Hercules, the historian Diodorus Siculus relates a tradition that
Hercules, in the performance of his labours, passed through the country of
nearby Cumae on his way to Sicily and found there a place called "the Phlegraean
Plain" (phlegraion pedion, "plain of fire"), "from a hill which anciently vomited
out fire ... now called Vesuvius." It was inhabited by bandits, "the sons of the
Earth," who were giants. With the assistance of the gods he pacified the region
and went on his separate way.

The key to unlocking the Enoch enigma is - OK! OK! Wait for it! Is it a
coincidence that the birthplace of the Gigantes were in volcanic regions and that
they met their final fate at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, which just happened to be
today 1,281 meters (4,203 feet) high. It is not 4500 feet now but there have been
over fifty eruptions in the past, with the most famous taking place in 79 AD when
it destroyed the city of Pompei. This would mean that the volcano would have lost
some of its height as a consequence of these eruptions. Hence, it is quite likely
that Mount Vesuvius was about 4500 feet high in ancient times.

It is my contention that when the Enoch Book of Watchers was translated from
the Hebrew to Greek and the word "Nephilim" was swapped for "gigantes" (earth
born) the translator knew the association between Mount Vesuvius and the
destruction of the giants by the gods. The translator also knew the mountain was
three-thousand cubits high and used this fact to embellish, adding supplemental
information, to the text that was not really there. Hence, he said that the women
became become pregnant by the Watchers and bore Nephilim three thousand
cubits high.

I could be wrong of course with my interpretation, but one thing that is clear
no person could have lived who was twice the height of the Burj Khalifa building.
The addition of the height of the Nephilim was either an embellishment or the
text was missing altogether and was later added. So Enoch chapter 7 should have
simply read, "And they became pregnant, and they bare mighty Nephilim" with
"mighty" corresponding to the Genesis account of the Nephilim being the
"mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

In conclusion and to recap, the giants described in earlier translations of the

Bible and in the Book of Enoch were not beings of gigantic physical size. The
Hebrew word for the children of the Watchers was "Nephilim", but when the
Greek translators of the Hebrew came to this word, they did not have an
alternative name to apply to it. So they decided to use the Greek word "gigantes",
which means earth born instead. However, they were not to know that later by
using this word that this would be interpreted as being linked to the race of giants
called Gigantes in Greek Mythology. Hence the mix-up. To make matters worse
and add to the confusion the word giants in English can also mean that people
were giants in the context of being mighty men just as Joseph Stalin, Winston
Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt were during the Second World War.

The Nephilim were not giants but they were certainly mighty men
of old, men of renown as we shall now demonstrate in the following

270
chapter.

271
 Chapter 11
WHEN THE GLOVE FITS
"In the long evolutionary chain that links the first life forms billions of years
ago, one link more or less would not have been very significant. But the
Neanderthals were members of a parallel mankind that evolved in Europe
independently from our evolutionary line over the course of hundreds of
thousands of years."
(Juan Luis Arsuaga "The Neanderthal's Necklace" 2001)

It has been quite a long journey for the reader to have reached this chapter, the
chapter that will begin to put all the pieces together. I do apologise about this and
thank you for your patience. However, it was necessary. For a hundred and fifty
years or more the only theory that explained the enigma of the Neanderthals was
through the theory of evolution. Hence, before I could present my own theory
that the Neanderthals were in fact the Nephilim as described in the Bible, I
needed to demonstrate that Neanderthals had not evolved and that the theory of
evolution could not explain their existence.

With this in mind I turned to the only sources that could be used to either
prove or discredit the theory, namely evolutionists own writings, debates and
discussions. Hence, I presented the comments of evolutionist scientists every
step of the way just as each discovery was made and was publicly announced and
the discussions and debates that followed each find. I have not used any
creationist references at all so that nobody can accuse me of being a Creationist
fundamentalist with a chip on my shoulder. I have not used any of their writings.

272
 This means that the theory of evolution pertaining to the origins of man, which
also include Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, stands or falls by its own merits
based solely on evolutionist material.

What did we find out in the preceding chapters? Upon reading the words of
evolutionists as they announced their "proofs" of evolution with respects to man
through all kinds of media we discovered that these "proofs" were either
inaccurate, deceptive, misinterpreted or downright misleading. The so called
"overwhelming evidence for the evolution of man" as voiced by author and
evolutionist Richard Dawkins and others was in fact "underwhelming". What
we discovered was that there was little or no evidence at all to support the case
for the evolution of man.

It is extraordinary to think that if the theory of evolution was any other field of
science, it would have been cast out as a pseudo-science a long time ago, not
worthy to be included with the other sciences. Yet the theory persists, because it
takes a long time for people to change their view on something that they have
been taught from childhood, the same theory that their parents had been taught
before them, and their grandparents before them. However, the tide is beginning
to turn and a revolution is taking shape and growing as I write this tome. So
although the popular media continues to promote evolution for all its worth,
financed by the evolutionist propaganda machine, a new breed of scientist has
arisen in the last decade or two that is taking on the evolutionists head on.

Many of these scientists have written articles and books questioning

Darwinism and evolution, and they are not the religious opponents that
evolutionist have had to deal with in the past. They are scientists, pure and
simple, from diverse fields of science such as biology, anatomy, physics, genetics
and... the list goes on. These scientists advocate Intelligent Design, where certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
cause, not the undirected process such as evolution. Truly, evolutionists have a
fight on their hands and religion does not even come into the picture.

What has become clear during the research carried out in this book is that
rather being the apelike ancestors of man which has been taught for decades,
Neanderthals have not evolved but had apparently appeared as if from nowhere
and then they were gone. During their brief period of existence they mingled with
Cro-Magnons (superior humans as we shall see), and humans, with the former
also disappearing about the same time as the Neanderthals, leaving only man to
populate the earth to wonder what happened. As to what caused the
disappearance of the Neanderthals this a subject of considerable debate.
Evolutionists are deeply divided about this issue, which is not surprising since
their evolutionary models keep changing all the time so that what was once
accepted as gospel one day has had to be thrown out of the window with the bath
water to be replaced by an equally imaginative "proof" to explain the riddle.

A few bones here or there does not constitute evidence but the way
evolutionary science works when making a discovery follows a predictable

273
 pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an apelike
"ancestor" revealed and an artist's impression is made as to what the creature
looked like, often morphed only from a tooth or skull fragment. The discoverer
then becomes famous and is able to obtain lucrative financial grants to carry out
further research, while at the same time earning substantial money from public
engagements and media interviews. However, as is so often the case, the actual
fossil bones are so fragmentary that any interpretation could be made concerning
them thus allowing imagination to be run wild. Later, when more "evidence" is
found, the "ancestor" turns out to be either totally ape or totally human, but the
mistake is kept quiet and so the show goes on as if nothing has happened to upset
the status quo.

Neanderthal man is a typical case of imagination running wild. It took many

years to prove that he was totally human but by that time the damage had been
done. The story of Neanderthals that evolutionists presented, namely that they
were apelike ancestors of man, has deceived the world to an extraordinary
degree. In fact, the truth of the deception has still not fully filtered down to the
general public who still believe in the myth of the ape-man ancestor popularised
by evolutionist propaganda. Even so the word is getting out as is shown by a
recent report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper published in February, 2012. It
summarises the true nature of Neanderthals as very well and endorsing what I
had written in the chapter "The Truth About Neanderthals".

"Of our now-extinct cousins, the Neanderthals are by far the best-
known. It was believed that they were dim-witted brutes - and, as it
happens, our direct ancestors. It turns out that neither was the case.
True, the Neanderthals' societies were probably smaller and simpler
than those of Homo sapiens, but they buried their dead, were skilled
tool-makers and hunters, and are thought to have used language.
Similarly, over the past few decades, they have gone from being
regarded as our direct ancestors to a side-branch that we may have
helped drive to extinction." [1]

It is now time to put together the pieces of the jigsaw from a Biblical point of
view and as we shall soon discover all the pieces fit together like a glove once we
do away with the evolutionist model. There is one thing that I can say with
confidence. The theory that I propose herein is no more fantastic than that which
those who support the evolutionary point of view present with their 'ape to man'
theory. At least I have the support of the written records of our ancestors and
their traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation to
assist me. While it is true that some of those records and stories may have
become garbled over time and tinged with local embellishments, nonetheless
their core details show through and therefore they remain a useful and
informative source of information. So let me begin.

274
IDENTIFYING THE CRO-MAGNONS
Cro-Magnon is the informal name once used by scientists to refer to the people
who were living alongside Neanderthals at the end of the last ice age (ca. 35,000-
10,000 years ago according to conventional dating schemes). They were given the
name Cro-Magnon' because in 1868, parts of five skeletons were discovered in
the rock shelter of that name, located in the famous Dordogne Valley of France.

When the first skeletons of Cro-Magnons were discovered, they were clearly
different to normal humans otherwise they would have been lumped together
and identified as Homo sapiens. The fact that they were not identified as such
proves that there was something special about them - and they were special.
Although the skeletons had the same high forehead, upright posture and slender
(gracile) skeleton as modern humans here the similarities ended. In the 1930
Smithsonian publication "Man from the Furthest Past" we read why Cro-
Magnons stood out from the rest of the crowd.

"The splendid Cro-Magnon race first appears in Europe at the

beginning of the Aurignacian. [2] At this time, in addition to his other
fine attributes, it enjoyed that of exceptionally great stature, which it
later lost. The men seem actually to have averaged over six feet in
height, and individuals have been found who stood over six feet four
inches. In addition to this splendid height, the men had deep chests
and broad shoulders, and the proportions of their leg bones show that
they were capable of great speed and physical activity. The Cro-
Magnon race stands, in fact, among the finest that has ever existed
anywhere in the world!" [3]

275
 Cro-Magnons were so remarkable that the famous German writer Herbet
Wendt (1914 - 1979) suggested in his book "From Ape to Adam that perhaps man
had degenerated.

"He was not it the least apelike. On the contrary, he was fully human -
and more so. Above average height - the males approached six foot six -
he was shown to have a high forehead, prominent cheek-bones, and a
pronouncedly firm chin. His skull capacity was above the average for
modern Europeans. If he was the ancestor of modern man - the view
now accepted - there would appear to have been a process of
degeneration from that point to the present day". [4]

In the book Race and History: An Ethnological Introduction to History by

Eugène Pittard, we read a similar statement.

"The tall skeletons were yielded by the Cro-Magnon (Dordogne) and

Baousse-Rousse (Italy) stations. The old man of Cro-Magnon must
have been very tall (1 metre 82) [nearly 6 feet]. His companions were
not quite so tall (Hamy gives an average height of 1 metre 78) [5'10"].
The five adult skeletons of Baousse-Rousse by Verneau range in height
from 1 metre 79 to 1 metre 94 [6'4"] (average 1 meter 87) [6'2"]. These
are extraordinary figures. No existing European population can show
an average like this, since it exceeds 1 metre 82". [5] [square brackets
mine]

In his work "Stone Age", Clement Wood described Cro-Magnon in these terms.

"The men of his race varied in height from 5' 11" to 6' 7", with the
average male well over six feet. The race, with a cranial average of 1800
C.CM., was one of the finest of which the world has record." [6]

Robert Oram writing in his book Biology: Teacher's Annotated Edition also
said that Cro-Magnons were about 30% taller that humans that lived at the same
time so they would certainly appear like gods to the local population.
There heads too marked them out as supermen. With a cranial capacity of 1800
cc compared to modern man of about 1450 cc [7]

276
 Today there has been a cover up. The special characteristics of the Cro-
Magnons have now been hidden from public view because today, the term "Cro-
Magnon" is no longer used. Instead scientists use the term 'Anatomically Modern
Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate early humans that
resembled us. It has been often said that apart from their physical height and
brain capacity Cro-Magnons were really just Homo sapiens, just bigger.
Consequently, Cro-Magnons have been dropped into the same baggage of
hominids and classified as Anatomically Modern Humans when it is clear that
those remains are not in the same league. The baggage include Homo sapiens
idaltu from Herto in Ethiopia said to be 160,000 years old, the Omo remains said
to dated about 195,000 years and remains from Skhul in Israel that are said to be
90,000 years old.

Once again we see the same old tricks that evolutionists use to conveniently
hide remains that do not fit into their evolutionary preconceptions. By dumping
Cro-Magnons into the "Anatomically Modern Human" category their special
characteristics of height and brain capacity are hidden from the public who
simply believe that they were just plain ordinary humans, when in fact they were
not. What makes things worse is those remains classified alongside Cro-Magnons
do not resemble him at all. Let us take a look at these so called anatomically
modern humans to show you what I mean.

HERTO SAPIENS IDALTU

The fossilised remains of Herto sapiens idaltu were discovered at Herto Bouri
near the Middle Awash site of Ethiopia's Afar Triangle in 1997 by Tim White, but
they were not announced until 2003.

Herto Bouri is a region of Ethiopia covered by volcanic layers. By using

radioisotope dating, the layers date between 154,000 and 160,000 years old.
(Note that the layers of rock was dated and not the fossils themselves, which
could easily have been fragmentary remains of early Ethiopians that had been

277
 buried). Three well preserved crania were found, the best preserved being from
an adult male (BOU-VP-16/1) who had a brain capacity of 1,450 cm3 (88 cu in)
which is about the same as modern humans. The other crania included another
partial adult male and that of a six-year old child.

There was a big splash about the discovery in Nature magazine, 12 June 2003
with the front cover declaring that "Ethiopian fossils are the earliest Homo
sapiens", and inside the journal it was reported that, "A near-complete adult skull
and a partial child's skull have been dated to about 160,000 years old, making
them the oldest remains that can be firmly assigned to modern Homo sapiens. In
addition this shows that morphologically modern humans had emerged long
before 'classic' Neanderthals vanished from Eurasia." [8]

On the font cover was an amazing reconstruction by J. Matternes based on the

BOU-VP-16/1 male cranium which is typical of evolutionist sensationalist
propaganda having no basis on reality. How one can morph a reconstruction of a
"human ancestor" based upon a skull cranium is beyond me.

What is of considerable interest is that Herto sapiens idaltu is classified as an

anatomically modern human and yet he is declared in Nature magazine that he
differs "from those of chronologically later forms of early H. sapiens such as Cro-
Magnon found in Europe and other parts of the world in that their morphology
has many archaic features not typical of H. sapiens (although modern human
skulls do differ across the globe)." [9]

What madness is this? Despite having archaic features, these specimens are
argued to represent anatomically modern humans, the same category that Cro-
Magnons have been designated, when clearly they are not comparable. The same
can be said regarding the Omo remains that I next describe that are also dumped

278
 into the same category.

THE OMO REMAINS

The two partial adult craniums, Omo I and Omo II and some bones were first
uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by
Richard Leakey. Omo I is only a skull cap, so not much information could be
obtained from it, but its upturned front and back ends indicates that it was very
primitive. Omo II has a cranial capacity of 1400 cc, about the same as the average
modern man.

The discovery of the Omo fossils were reported on the 17th February issue of
the journal Nature in 1997, and it established Omo I and II as the oldest known
fossils of modern humans. However, previously dated at 130,000 years of age,
they were redated to being 195,000 years and this made headlines around the
world in 2005.

On this occasion the National Geographic Magazine made a big splash by

saying that "Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older
than previously thought, a new study says-pushing the dawn of "modern"
humans back 35,000 years." [10]

Keep in mind that the revised dating was instigated by funding from the
National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the L.S.B. Leakey
Foundation, and the Australian National University, all of which had a vested
interest in trouncing the Herto sapiens idaltu claims as promoted by their
competitor Tim White.

John G. Fleaglea, anthropologist at the Department of Anatomical Sciences of

Stony Brook University, New York gives us a little more information by
publishing an evaluation of Omo I and II in the Journal of Human Evolution in
September 2008.

"Cranial and skeletal remains of modern humans, Homo sapiens, were

discovered in the Kibish Formation in 1967 by a team from the Kenya
National Museums directed by Richard Leakey. Omo I, from Kamoya's

279
 Hominid Site (KHS), consists of much of a skeleton, including most of
the cranial vault, parts of the face and mandible, and many postcranial
elements. Omo II, from Paul's Hominid Site (PHS), is a virtually
complete calvaria. Only a limited fauna and a few stone artifacts
attributed to the Middle Stone Age were recovered in conjunction with
the fossil hominids." [11]

Fleaglea continued his assessment by saying, "Studies of the postcranial

remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number
of primitive features." [12]

The National Geographic assessment agreed with what Fleaglea had said.
"Although both Omo I and Omo II were classified as Homo sapiens in 1967, the
Omo II remains were considered much more primitive." [13] The magazine
raised doubts as to what category Omo II should be put in.

"Everyone agrees that the Omo II cranium is more primitive than

the Omo I skull in many features, Fleagle said. Some see the two as
part of a continuum, others see them as very distinct types of
hominid... Whether Omo II gets put in Homo sapiens depends upon
where one draws the boundary between H. sapiens and whatever
species comes before-H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis." [14]

What all this boils down to is that just like the Herto sapiens idaltu remains it
is clear that Omo I and II do not resemble Cro-Magnon Man with his large
cranium and superior physique. Furthermore, it is universally recognised that
Omo II was more primitive that Omo 1 which was found on the opposite side of
the river Omo. This begs the question why is Omo II categorised as an
anatomically modern human, when clearly, and as has been acknowledged, he is
not? And as far as Omo I is concerned, although only fragments of a skull cap was
uncovered making it very difficult to make an assessment. One thing is certain.
The Omo I skullcap does not compare in size to the Cro-Magnon race.

To recap, Herto sapiens idaltu and Omo remains have been placed into the
same category as Cro-Magnons, namely "Anatomically Modern Humans" even
though they do no resemble him in any degree or form. There is one other group
of fossils that has also been put in the same category, the remains found at Skhul,
in Israel? Do they look like Cro-Magnons? Let us take a look and see.

THE SKHUL REMAINS

The remains of seven adults and three children were found between 1929 and
1935 at a cave located at Es Skhul in Mount Carmel, Israel. Tentatively dated as
being between 80,000 to 120,000 years old they are considered anatomically
modern humans as the Smithsonian website is keen to point out.

280
 "However, after more precise dating techniques, scientists found that
the modern Homo sapiens fossils at Skhul were about 90,000 years
old, much older than was previously thought. This meant the
anatomically modern human population at Skhul lived at the
same time as the Neanderthal population of Tabun. Therefore, the
Tabun Neanderthals could not have been the ancestors of modern
humans in the Near East." [15] [bold mine]

In many respects the Skhul remains were fairly tall individuals, ranging from
5'6" to 5'8 in height while three of the skulls had brain capacities of 1588, 1600,
and 1616 cc., respectively, which were therefore greater than those of most living
men today. However, although bigger than the average human, unlike Cro-
Magnons, the Skhul remains exhibit a mix of archaic and modern traits,
possessing brow ridges and a projecting facial profile, similar to those of
Neanderthals.

It should be of interest that Neanderthal remains have been found nearby at

Kebara Cave which will no doubt have some bearing on the matter. As a
consequence the Skhul remains were initially regarded as transitional from
Neanderthals to modern humans, or as hybrids between Neanderthals and
modern humans. I believe the last hypothesis is probably correct as we shall
discuss in the last chapter of this book.

The question remains. Should the Skhul remains be put in the same category
as Cro-Magnons, namely anatomically modern humans? To this question I say
no simply because Cro-Magnons do not exhibit any Neanderthal like features
whereas the Skhul skulls do.

To summarise then, it is evident from what we have discussed that Cro-

281
 Magnons should not have been put into the same category as Anatomically
Modern Humans, where the Herto and Omo remains in Ethiopia or the Skhul
remains in Israel have been dumped. By putting Cro-Magnon Man in the same
category hides the fact that he was very special and unique.

Cro-Magnons were very tall and had superior physiques compared to that of
contemporary humans. They had amazing large brains, hence descriptions of
"The race, with a cranial average of 1800 C.CM., was one of the finest of which
the world has record." and "The Cro-Magnon race stands, in fact, among the
finest that has ever existed anywhere in the world!" really says it all. Cro-
Magnons were supermen in comparison to homo sapiens living at the time and
must have appeared as gods to the local population - and they did. They were
certainly worshipped as such as we are about to discover.

THE WATCHERS
Imagine a scenario when after Adam and Eve had been expelled from the
Garden of Eden the fledgling human race for a thousand years spread over the
earth during what was to them a Golden Age. Apart from isolated squabbles they
did not know war, shared in the bounty that the earth offered, tended animals
that provided them with clothing and sustenance and perhaps even
transportation. Although they tilled the soil generally speaking they lived what
appears to us an idyllic life. However, such a life was in fact detrimental for their
long term health and well being. Man was not designed to sit around and do
nothing. His physiology clearly shows that he was meant for work and needs
physical exercise and mental stimulation to grow.

In addition to the need to work there is immense enjoyment to be had in

working and accomplishing tasks. This is why most people who have the
opportunity do nothing prefer to remain active and to work, just as I do. For
example when I moved to Devon from Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire after giving
up my job as Software Development Manager, which I had been for eleven years,
I could have just retired and lived a "quiet" life. But that is not in my nature nor is
it in yours.

When I brought a Kindle to read e-books I discovered to my surprise that there

was no software available that was specifically designed to write books for this
platform. Usually, people have their books converted from say Microsoft Word
format to Amazon's mobi format, often with mixed results. So with many years
involved in computer technology and software development I created a software
product called Kindle Writer, and this book that you are reading was built
entirely with this program.

282
 So it was that from an idea I developed something that had not existed before
and now Kindle Writer is being used by hundreds of authors all over the world to
write their books. This is what creation is all about, and one can easily see from
my own personal experience how our Creator came up with the idea of creating
our universe and our world and by using the tools at his disposal this is exactly
what he did. Hence, at one time our universe did not exist and now it does. At
one time Kindle Writer did not exist and now it does. Would you deny that I had
not developed Kindle Writer, so why should you deny that "In the Beginning God
Created the Heavens and the Earth." (Genesis 1:1)

It is a fact that Man had been created for greater things and like his Creator he
is a creative being and flourishes when he is making things. There is nothing man
cannot do given the motivation and mutual co-operation. He has accomplished
wonders that our ancestors would have thought were miracles. The present world
with its technologies clearly attest to this fundamental truth. But in the Golden
Age that spark of creativity had as yet not materialised, at least not to any great
significant degree. There was a need for a little push to ignite that spark. A
guiding hand would also be necessary because with every technical
accomplishment there is the intrinsic capacity to use it for good or evil, either
intentionally or unintentionally. Consequently, after a thousand years had
passed, God sent angels called Watchers to provide instruction and guidance to
mankind in the days of Jared and we are told about this in several ancient
writings, and not necessarily biblical.

In the Book of Jubilees we read find some additional information.

283
 "And in the second week of the tenth jubilee Mahalalel took unto him
to wife Dinah, the daughter of Barakiel the daughter of his father's
brother, and she bare him a son in the third week in the sixth year, and
he called his name Jared; for in his days the angels of the Lord
descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they
should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment
and uprightness on the earth." [16]

Jared by the way was the father of Enoch who had personal dealings with the
Watchers which is what is recorded in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch).

The belief that sages were sent to instruct mankind is a familiar theme in the
ancient world, especially in the areas where the Watchers are said to have
appeared. We do not know how many Watchers were sent but ancient traditions
suggest that initially there were seven, known collectively as the Seven Sages. We
read this in ancient Mesopotamian writings, where it is told that gods had
created humankind to cultivate the soil and make sure that the gods - by means
of sacrifice - would receive their meals. However, the first people did not really
know how to do the job they were supposed to do, and therefore, the gods sent
the Apkallu, the seven sages to show them what to do.

The seven sages are listed alongside their respective kings (with whom they
presumably worked closely as advisers) in a cuneiform "sage list" from Uruk. [17]
What is most important about the sages for our purposes is their role as
guardians and holders and teachers of divine knowledge. Both of these functions
are associated with the Watchers in 1 Enoch, and perhaps implicitly in Genesis.
They also appear in an apotropaic incantation text in which they are described as
"the seven brilliant apkallu's, purädu-fish of the sea, seven apkallu's 'grown' in
the river, who insure the correct functioning of the plans of heaven and
earth." [18]

According to Berossus, a Babylonian writer, astronomer and a priest of Bel

Marduk who was active at the beginning of the third century BC, these sages
taught the people writing, science, and technology of all types, the foundation of
cities, the building of temples, jurisprudence and geometry, as well as such
necessities as agriculture.

Using ancient Babylonian records and texts that are now lost to us, Berossus
published his "Babyloniaca" (History of Babylonia) in three books some time
around 290-278 BC, by the patronage of the Macedonian/Seleucid king,
Antiochus I Soter (during the third year of Antiochus I, according to Diodorus
Siculus). It is from these texts that Berossus gives us a description of one of the
seven sages whose name was Oannes.

Berossus describes Oannes as having the body of a fish but underneath was the
body of a man. He is described as dwelling in the Persian Gulf, and rising out of

284
 the waters in the daytime and furnishing mankind instruction in writing, the
arts and the various sciences. Here is what Berossus has to say.

"At Babylon there was a great resort of people of various nations who
inhabited Chaldaea and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the
field. In the first year there appeared from that part of the Erythraean
sea which borders Babylonia, an animal destitute of reason by the
name of Oannes, whose whole body was that of a fish. That under the
fish's head he had another head, with feet also below, similar to those
of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too and language, was
articulate and human. A representation of him is preserved even to this
day.

Oannes was accustomed to pass the day among men, but took no food
at that season. He gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and
arts of every kind. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples,
to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical
knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and
showed them how to collect the fruits. In short he instructed them in
everything which could tend to soften manners, and humanise their
lives. From that time forward nothing material has been added in the
way of improvement to his instructions. When the sun had set this
Being retired again to the sea, and passed the night in the deep, for he
was amphibious. After this there appeared, other's like Oannes."

It is evident that Oannes was human even though he is characterised as having

been inside a fish-like avatar. What does the symbolism mean? The key is that he
is described as "amphibious". Berosus wrote his Babylonian History in the Greek
language and the Greek word amphibious means simply "life on two planes,"
from amphi, "on both sides," and bious, life" "having a dual or mixed nature,
literally: having a double life" [19] What this means is explained in the book,
"Meditations On the Signs of the Zodiac. Talking about the sign of Capricorn, the
writer explains: "The dualism of Capricorn manifests itself in the symbology of
the amphibious creatures, whose dual attributes portray the physical and the
spiritual nature of man" [20] [bold mine]

From what we have learned about Oannes, although he is described as a fish-

man by Berosus, he represents the spiritual (whence he had come) and the
physical that is man. In other words he is a Watcher, having descended from
Heaven (spiritual existence) to become a man (physical existence) to impart
knowledge to those who "lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field". At
this time mankind lived like the beasts of the field, roaming about the
countryside searching for food and without defined rules or laws. The seven sages
and the other Watchers were sent to change all that.

285
 It is interesting to note that in the Hindu religion we see the avatar of the
Hindu god Vishnu in the form of a fish, preceding Kurma. Called Matsya
(Sanskrit:"Fish") he is described as having rescued the first man, Manu, from a
great deluge. Matsya is depicted as a giant fish, or anthropomorphically with a
human torso connected to the rear half of a fish.

The earliest accounts of the legend associate Matsya with the creator god
Prajapati (identified with Brahma). However, Puranic scriptures incorporate
Matsya as an avatar of Vishnu. Matsya forewarns Manu about an impending
catastrophic flood and orders him to collect all the grains of the world in a boat;
in some forms of the story, all living creatures are also to be preserved in the
boat. When the flood destroys the world, Manu - in some versions accompanied
by the seven great sages - survives by boarding the ark, which Matsya pulls to
safety. In later versions of this story, the sacred texts Vedas are hidden by a
demon, whom Matsya slays: Manu is rescued and the scriptures are recovered.
The tale is in the tradition of the family of flood myths, common across cultures.

We also see that the symbol of the fish is associated with world saviours as Picart
and Bernard's Religious Ceremonies of the World enlightens us.

"The fish has often been associated with the World Saviours. Vishnu,
the Hindu Redeemer, who takes upon himself ten forms for the
redemption of the universe, was expelled from the mouth of a fish in
his first incarnation. Isis, while nursing the infant Horus, is often
shown with a fish on her headdress. Oannes, the Chaldean Saviour
(borrowed from the Brahmins), is depicted with the head and body of a
fish, from which his human form protrudes at various points. Jesus
was often symbolised by a fish. He told His disciples that they should

286
 became "fishers of men." The sign of the fish was also the first
monogram of the Christians. The mysterious Greek name of Jesus,
means "a fish." The fish was accepted as a symbol of the Christ by a
number of early canonised church fathers. St. Augustine likened the
Christ to a fish that had been broiled, and it was also pointed out that
the flesh of that Fish was the food of righteous and holy men." [21]

THE WATCHERS = CRO-MAGNONS

The Seven Sages and the other Watchers that were sent evidently carried out
the tasks that had been assigned to them dispersing throughout the habitations
of man to provide instruction, knowledge and guidance. Of them there is nothing
said about any of them copulating with women. However, according to Genesis
and the Book of Enoch an angel called Semyaza who held a position of leadership
and two hundred of his associates had been given the same brief as that of the
other Watchers. However, they through personal choice had a different agenda to
that to which they had been assigned. Instead of following what they had been
tasked to do they believed that they were superior to humans and they wanted
man to be their servants and to be worshipped by them as gods.

There was more. They also lusted after the women for desire was great to
copulate with them and enjoy the pleasures of the flesh. However, for the
purposes of mating with women it was necessary for them to take on human
form. This then raised the question. What physical form should the Watchers
take on that would reflect their superior status and godlike demeanour? What
would you have done in their position?

Clearly, had the Watchers taken on the form of a dwarf they would not have
been taken seriously. And if they appeared just like ordinary men, this would
mean that they would have to prove themselves in competition with those they
planned to rule. This was not a chance the Watchers were willing to take. Besides
according to the Genesis narrative it appears that the women that the Watchers
took for wives in order to have sex with them were forcibly taken. Under such
circumstances there is no doubt that the families of the women taken by the
Watchers would not take such actions lightly. Consequently, the Watchers
needed to appear formidable right from the start. They needed to ensure that no
matter what they did, they would be regarded as gods and obeyed accordingly.
Hence, it is not unreasonable to assume therefore that they took on bodies that
were taller and physically superior to the common man whom they planned to
rule. In other words, they took on the form that we see discernible in the Cro-
Magnon race.

There have not been many remains of Cro-Magnons found, which is

understandable since there were not many Watchers compared to the general
population of man. However, those that have been found were generally over six
feet tall, physically robust with large brains. As previously remarked they have

287
 been described as "among the finest that has ever existed anywhere in the
world!" Compared to contemporary Homo sapiens who were on average between
5'6" to 5'8" tall Cro-Magnons were veritable supermen. They were the perfect
candidates for being the Watchers. Indeed, it is my belief and claim that Cro-
Magnons were the Watchers, the same as those that were described in Genesis.
Furthermore, it is no coincidence that in the wide variety of legends and stories
that constitute ancient Greek mythology, the deities are described as having
perfect physical bodies.

One can be reasonably certain that the description of the gods in the Greek
myths are echoes of what the Watchers looked like, stories that have been passed
down through the ages and localised. After the Flood, the survivors were
disbursed, and this is described in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.1-32. Here
we can read the lists the descendants of Noah and the nations they founded. The
Greeks appear under the name "Javan," who was the son of Japheth. Ray C.
Stedman, The author of the book The Beginnings explains the Genesis/Greek
connection.

"Two others of the sons of Japheth were Madai and Javan. These are
easily recognizable in history: The Madai became the Medes, of the
famous Medes and Persian Empire. Javan is unquestionably the
ancestor of the Greeks. His name, Javan, is still found in Greece in the
form of Ionia. The Ionic Sea and Ionian Peninsula all derive from this
word Javan. His sons were Elishah, from which we get the Greek word,
Helles (the Greeks are still called Hellenes), and Tarshish, whom most
scholars associate with Spain; Kittim, which is the Island of Cyprus;
and Dodanim, who settled around the Black Sea, and still finds a

288
 modern parallel in the word, the Dardanelles. These can all be traced
by the geographical titles and place names they left behind." [22]

Furthermore, we find a reference to the connection between the Spartans and

Jews in the The First book of Maccabees. This book was originally written in
Hebrew by a Jewish author after the restoration of an independent Jewish
kingdom, about the latter part of the second century BC. However, the original
Hebrew was lost and the most important surviving version can be found as part
of the Greek translation of the Septuagint. In the book it is recorded, "It has been
discovered in a written record that the Spartans and the Jews are relatives and
are both of the family of Abraham". (1 Maccabees 12:21) Hence, there is a definite
connection between what is said in the Greek myths and that of Genesis.

As there is a connection between what is said in the Greek myths and that of
Genesis it should be on no surprise to find that Greek Mythology has an account
of the Flood that is remarkably similar to the Biblical story. The Deucalion Flood
legend describes how the titan Prometheus advised his son Deucalion to build a
chest. All other men perished except for a few who escaped to high mountains.
The mountains in Thessaly was split asunder and parted, and all the world
beyond the Isthmus and Peloponnese was overwhelmed. Deucalion and his wife
Pyrrha, after floating in the chest for nine days and nights, landed on Parnassus.
When the rains ceased, he sacrificed to Zeus. Then, at the bidding of Zeus, he
threw stones behind him, and they became men, and the stones Pyrrha threw
became women.

Although I am the first to admit that Genesis or the Book of Enoch do not
specifically describe the Watchers physical attributes, nonetheless what I have
suggested does add up especially when we take a look at the children of the
Watchers. Here I can offer a stronger case, that reinforces what I have written
about the Watchers. The children of which I speak are the Nephilim of the Bible
and I equate them with the same people that lived at the same time as the Cro-
Magnons, namely the Neanderthal race.

THE NEANDERTHAL RACE

All parties agree, whether they be evolutionists or creationists that at one time
three "species" or "variations" of man coexisted at one time. Only the names
given by each part differ as do the dates assigned to the period of the existence.
For evolutionists, we read of the Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Creationists refer to our ancestors having been Watchers, Nephilim and humans.
It has been the purpose of this book to demonstrate that both opposing camps on
the origins of man are actually singing from the same song sheet. Cro-Magnons
are in fact the Watchers and that Neanderthals were really the Nephilim. If we
were to compare the skeletons of these three individuals, the reader will
immediately be able to form a mental picture of the kind of beings that we have
been discussing.

289
 Cro-Magnons (Watchers) look just like Homo sapiens (humans) except that
their skeletons clearly show significant superior attributes to that of their human
counterparts. For example, they have a more powerful bodily frame which
reflects upon their superior physical prowess. In addition their larger head and
tall stature marks them out as gods among men.

As for Neanderthals (Nephilim) the hybrid children of the Watchers, it is clear

that they had inherited many of the traits of their fathers. They had a bigger skull
than humans, their joints were larger, bones thicker and their rib cages were
massive demonstrating that they had well muscled chests.

It is further evident from examining the attachment points at which muscle

bind to their bones that Neanderthal calves and biceps were extremely well
developed as well as their pectoral chest and back muscles as already noted.
Neanderthals, because of their greater muscle mass, would weigh some ten kilos
more than a modern human of equivalent height. Body builders of today would
find themselves hard pressed to match their Neanderthal counterparts. They
were not tall like their fathers, long in body but short in legs and were generally
shorter than humans although is some cases he was equally tall.

290
 Today's body builders build up their muscles through rigorous exercise and a
diet that is high in protein. It is well established that Neanderthals diets was
primarily a protein enriched one, consisting mainly of meat and fish. In addition,
because they were hunter gatherers physical exertion was as natural to them as
was breathing air.

Not only were Neanderthals muscular and heavy looking due to the thickness
of their bone structure, another attribute contributed to their fearful appearance.
They had huge heads and eyes. Compared to modern man the Neanderthal brain
was more than thirteen percent bigger and since early man was smaller in stature
than modern man, the difference must have been even more intimidating. And
then there were the eyes! The size of the skull eye sockets would have carried very
large eyeballs. He would be a formidable and frightening spectacle to anyone
confronting him for the first time - or any time for that matter.

It is clear from what I have presented in this book that previous interpretations
of Neanderthals promoted by evolutionists as being our direct ape-man ancestors
or revised as an evolutionary dead end are untenable. Furthermore, we learned
that detailed comparisons between the remains of Neanderthals and those of
modern humans show that there is no significant difference between the two
species with respects to tool usage, level of intelligence or the ability to speak.

Today, gone is the myth that Neanderthals resembled apes. It is now generally
acknowledged that they looked like us except for their muscular and powerful
physiques. It is enough to say that nowadays numerous articles are being
published in science journals and newspapers that continue to emphasise the
very human like qualities of Neanderthals. While it is true that bones cannot tell
you about things like hairiness, nor the shape of the fleshy parts, like nose or ears
computerised forensic science has come a long way in making educated "guesses"

291
 at a person's appearance from the shape of a skull.

Unlike the imaginative artistic reconstructions made throughout most of the

twentieth century based on evolutionary preconceptions and assumptions of ape-
like ancestors, recent forensic reconstructions are probably more realistic. The
results of such techniques indicate that the bones of the skull would not preclude
Neanderthals from looking like us except that their stout, powerful bodies and
large heads with large glaring eyes would give Neanderthals a terrible looking
aspect that are rarely found in humans.

It is interesting to note that one evolutionist in effect agrees with my

assessment regarding the Neanderthals terrifying demeanour. After five years of
rigorous scientific research, evolutionist Danny Vendramini has developed a
theory of human origins which is described as stunning in its simplicity, yet
breathtaking in its scope and importance. His Neanderthal Predation (NP) theory
reveals that Neanderthals were 'apex' predators - who resided at the top of the
food chain, and everything else - including humans - was their prey.

Little does Vendramini realise is that his views are very close to what the Bible
and the book of Enoch describes in connection with the Nephilim, although
Vendramini still adheres to the evolutionist apelike overview of Neanderthals in a
big way. He claims that that facial reconstructions on Neanderthals based on
human faces are misleading, and that apes provide a better analogue for
reconstructing facial characteristics of Neanderthals and his illustrations. The
cover of his book clearly show what he means. [23]

Of course I disagree with Vendramini's view that apes provide a better

analogue for reconstructing facial characteristics of Neanderthals and his

292
 reconstructions are just as misleading as that of Boule's famous picture.
Furthermore, as far as I know there have been no published findings of
Neanderthal fossils accompanied by evidence of thick body fur. On the other
hand, there is tantalising evidence that they may have had the technology to
make sewn garments, thus reducing any natural selection pressures favouring
hairiness. That said and done, Vendramini's observation that Neanderthals were
'apex predators', proverbial 'wolves with knives' who were effective rivals with
our ancestors does agree with what is described in Genesis and the Book of
Watchers (1 Enoch) with respects to the Nephilim.

NEANDERTHALS = NEPHILIM

The evidence that Neanderthals and the Biblical Nephilim were one and the
same is compelling. In the King James Bible version of Genesis we read, "The
Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of
God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same
were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (Genesis 6:4 ASV)
Other translations describe the latter verse as follows:

 "They were the powerful men of old, the famous men" - The Holman
Christian Standard Bible (2009)
 "who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times." - New
Living Translation (2007)

Genesis describes the Nephilim as mighty or powerful men who became heroes
and famous warriors of ancient times. We also learn from the book of Enoch that
the Nephilim consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no
longer sustain them, they turned against them and devoured mankind. The earth
became a violent place because of them and in the end they had to be

293
 exterminated. How this was accomplished I have reserved for the last chapter
of this work, because it also solves the mysterious disappearance of the
Neanderthals that has perplexed so many scientists.

There is considerable evidence to show that Neanderthals were battle

hardened cruel warriors judging from the wounds they had suffered. It is
discernible that they suffered a high frequency of fractures, especially common
on the ribs (Shanidar IV, La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 ('Old Man'), the femur (La
Ferrassie 1), fibulae (La Ferrassie 2 and Tabun 1)), spine (Kebara 2) and skull
(Shanidar I, Krapina, Sala 1). These fractures have often healed and they show
little or no sign of infection. This may suggest that injured individuals were cared
for during times of incapacitation or that they had a powerful immune system
which healed them quickly.

In some Neanderthal skeletons there were found stab wounds, as seen on the
Neanderthal individual called Shanidar III (found in Shanidar Cave in the
Bradost mountain, Zagros Mountains in Erbil Governorate, Kurdistan Region,
Iraq). His lung appears to have been punctured by a stab wound to the chest
between the eighth and ninth ribs. This may have been an intentional attack or
merely a hunting accident; either way the man survived for some weeks after his
injury before being killed by a rock fall in the Shanidar cave. Other signs of
trauma include blows to the head (Shanidar I and IV, Krapina), all of which
seemed to have healed, although traces of the scalp wounds are visible on the
surface of the skulls.

In 1995, paleoanthropologists Thomas Berger and Erik Trinkaus, now at

Washington University in St. Louis, noted that the Neanderthals had a

294
 disproportionate number of injuries to their heads and necks. In a study that
was published in the Journal of Archaeological Science in 2012, Trinkaus
considered the injuries recorded in the bones of early modern humans that lived
at the same time as Neanderthals. Statistically speaking, Trinkaus saw no
difference between the two species' wounds; they both suffered a lot of harm to
the head and neck. He concluded that "the source of those injuries might have
been violent attacks within or between the two species". In other words,
Neanderthals and humans might have fought each other. [24]

When the bones of a Neanderthal (Shanidar 3) found in Iraq was analysed

Steven Churchill, associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke
University in North Carolina, came to the conclusion that "We think the best
explanation for this injury is a projectile weapon, and given who had those and
who didn't, that implies at least one act of inter-species aggression." [25]

Churchill and his team carried out experiments which appeared to confirm his
findings. With the projectile weapon, even though it's travelling faster, it's a lot
lighter and it tends to make distinct cut marks in the bones without injuring
surrounding bones. "That's like what we saw in Shanidar 3," Churchill said.
Similarly, a skull and bones from El Sidron cave in Spain were found with jagged
edges, which Antonio Rosas of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in
Madrid believes were made by blows from stone tools.

The Book of Enoch says that the Nephilim "devoured mankind" in other words
they participated in cannibalism. Likewise, there is evidence that Neanderthals
did too. Deep in a cave in the forests of northern Spain is the remains of a
gruesome massacre. The first clues came to light in 1994, when explorers came
across a pair of what they thought were human jawbones in the cave, called El
Sidrón. At first, the bones were believed to date to the Spanish Civil War.
However, as more bones came to light the forensic scientists determined that the
bones could not have belonged to soldiers or even to modern humans for that
matter. They identified the jawbones as being the remains of Neanderthals.

Sixteen years later in 2006 a fresh study was made on the El Sidrón bones and
the results published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The Spanish scientists who analysed the bones, some eighteen hundred and DNA
came to a gruesome conclusion. The victims were a dozen members of an
extended family and they had been slaughtered by cannibals.

There were no animal bones that had been washed into the "Tunnel of Bones"
along with the Neanderthals so any marks could not have been done by them.
There were also fragments of stone blades nearby. So when the scientists closely
examined the Neanderthal bones, they found cut marks - signs that the blades
had been used to slice muscle from bone. The long bones had been snapped
open. It is from these clues, that the scientists concluded that the Neanderthals
were victims of cannibalism. [26]

Some scientists have even suggested that cannibalism may have been

295
 instrumental in the Neanderthals' extinction as a result of contracting
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies, the disease associated to
cannibalism. It is further suggested that the disease infected Neanderthal groups
as a result of their general cannibalistic activity and brain tissue consumption in
particular. Consequently infection could then have taken place through
continued cannibalistic activity or via shared used of infected stone tools. [27]

Danny Vendramini in his book aforementioned also referred to the above

claims that new archaeological and genetic evidence showed that Neanderthals
were savage, cannibalistic carnivores. This is also suggested in the Book of Enoch
too. In Enoch we read that the Nephilim having fed upon human flesh also
turned on each other. "And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and
reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood". (1
Enoch 7:6) [bold mine] It seems that eating their own kind was no taboo for the
Nephilim.

Further evidence for Neanderthal cannibalistic activities was revealed in 1999

when a team of French and U.S. archaeologists discovered a set of bones that
indicated a grisly scenario in which some Neanderthals were butchered, eaten,
and disposed of in the same manner as local game. The bones discovered at the
cave site of Moula-Guercy near the west bank of the Rhone river portray a
convincing picture in which a group of Neanderthals systematically defleshed the
bones of at least six other individuals and then broke the bones apart with stone
tools to remove the marrow and brains.

"The types of cuts and fractures on the directly associated deer bones
indicate that the animals were butchered in the same way, a similarity
that strongly suggests that the Neanderthals at Moula-Guercy practiced
cannibalism. "If we conclude that the animal remains are the leftovers
from a meal, we're obliged to expand that conclusion to include
humans," said Alban Defleur, of Université de la Méditerranée at
Marseilles. [28]

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION

A person with an open-mind would look at the evidence that I have presented
thus far and say that the glove fits. There certainly does appear to be a case for
accepting that the Watchers and Nephilim corresponded to the Cro-Magnons and
Neanderthals respectively. However, the reader may also have been aware that
evolutionists state categorically that, although they admit that Cro-Magnons,
Neanderthals and humans coexisted, they did so for thousands of years. Yet an
analysis of Genesis indicates that the Watchers and the Nephilim were only on
the earth for less than five-hundred years. How then is it possible for me to say
that my interpretation is correct when the odds are stacked against me with
regard to the dating inconsistencies between my theory and that of the evolution
model? The answer is quite simple. The dating methods used by evolutionists are

296
 hopelessly wrong and I am prepared to prove it. The next chapter sets out the
reason I can make such a bold and decisive claim.

297
 Chapter 12
A QUESTION OF TIME
"Neanderthals were hardly a weak group just before their extinction around
30,000 years ago, suggests new research. On the contrary, Britain's last
Neanderthals had sophisticated weapons and lived in strategic spots,
demonstrating impressive command of their territory." [bold mine]
Jennifer Viegas (Discovery News, 2008)

Before I can proceed to describe what happened to the Neanderthals

(Nephilim) and Cro-Magnons (Watchers) and solve the mystery of their sudden
disappearance thus leaving Homo sapiens to rule the roost I can be certain that
evolutionists will attack the theory of which I have presented so far. They will say
that the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, as well as modern humans have existed
on this planet for tens of thousands of years, just as professor Chris Stringer of
the Natural History Museum, London said on the BBC Horizon television
documentary "Neanderthal".

"We find Neanderthals right across Europe. They've evolved there for
over two hundred thousand years. And then thirty thousand years ago
we lose them, there are no more Neanderthals, they've gone." [1]

My equating the Neanderthals with the Nephilim would be, in evolutionist

298
 terms, flawed because if we were to take the ancient Jewish writings (Torah,
Book of Enoch) on face value then the Watchers came down in the days of Jared
sometime between 4832 BC - 3870 BC. [2] Then later they were destroyed before
or at the time of the Biblical Flood about 3554 BC.[3]

I must confess that evolutionist criticisms would be valid if it was not for one
very important fact. The dating methods that they have used to support their
theory and to declare Neanderthals were tens of thousands of years old is based
entirely on assumptions and not on any sound dating techniques. That may
sound astonishing and you would be right. Yet I am prepared to prove it and this
is what I shall do in the present chapter. In contrast my dating methodology is
based upon written records, not only from that of the Biblical scriptures but other
records such as those of the Sumerians, written closer to the times when the
Watchers appeared on the earth. It behoves me therefore to present my case and
to examine the evolutionist dating system to prove that what I have said has
considerable merit.

THE QUATERNARY EXTINCTION EVENT

It is now generally acknowledged that ninety-nine percent of all the creatures
that have ever lived had been wiped-out in a series of global catastrophes in the
course of the history of the earth. Each disaster changed the course of life on
earth and without such catastrophes mankind, nor any of the life we see around
us, would be here today. For out of catastrophe came rebirth. Each catastrophe
pushed life to the edge of extinction but from disaster came new life. While the
dominant species on the planet were wiped out during each extinction event
hardier creatures survived and moved into the vacuum left by the extinction.
These creatures then themselves took over the planet until they themselves fell to
another mass extinction. Today, we are the survivors of the last of those
extinction events. [4]

As far as dating human remains are concerned, whatever dating methodology

is used one has to take into account the dramatic climatic changes that took place
when a global catastrophic event known as the Quaternary extinction event
occurred near what is called by geologists as the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary.
This extinction event eliminated two-thirds of all mammal genera and half of all
species that had a body mass that was more than 44 kg we call megafauna. These
included mastodons, woolly mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, giant sloths, camels,
and teratorns (predatory birds with a nearly four-metre wingspan).

The Pleistocene/Holocene boundary is placed at about 10,000 years B.P

(before present) or about 8000 BC. [5] Interestingly, the International Union for
Quaternary Science (INQUA) that was established in 1928 to encourage and
facilitate the research of Quaternary scientists in all disciplines accepted 10,000
B.P (8000 BC) as a date for the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary before a
suitable site was identified to be dated at that age. Setting the date first and then
trying to find a suitable site to fit the criteria is not scientific objectivity. It is a

299
 fudge!

"In 1969, the INQUA Congress in Paris accepted the

Pleistocene/Holocene boundary as 10,000 C14 yr BP and R.W
Fairbridge (oral.comm) proposed the selection of the Holocene
boundary stratotype at some suitable site that could be dated at around
10,000 plus or minus 250 radiocarbon years." [6]

Does the reader understand what the INQUA Congress in Paris was saying? To
ensure that the date 10,000 BP (8000 BC) is correct, a suitable site would have to
be found and dated. For decades this date has been bandied around as if it was
truth but here we read an admission that this date was only an assumption that
needed to be verified "to ensure that the date is correct". We are going see the
word "assumption" or "assumed" a great deal in this chapter and it won't be
coming from me.

The dating of human remains will also need to be taken into consideration the
smaller catastrophic events that has occurred during the last six thousand years.
These would most certainly have effected the world's climate and as a
consequence would also have an impact on radiocarbon dating, a methodology
that we shall discuss in detail shortly. These catastrophes include the volcanic
eruption that blew into the stratosphere the land that once joined Sumatra to
Java in 536 AD. The resulting dust veil caused global cooling and drought and in
fact this single catastrophic event is thought to have changed the course of
history for every civilisation on this planet. [7]

Then there was the Thera Island volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean (1645
BC to 1500 BC) that killed upwards of 40,000 people in just a few hours. The
mega eruption produced colossal tsunamis forty feet tall, spewed volcanic ash

300
 across Asia, and caused a drop in global temperatures. Thera's eruption was
four or five times more powerful than Krakatoa, geologists believe, exploding
with the energy of several hundred atomic bombs in a fraction of a second. [8]
The violent eruption sent six times more magma and rock into the Earth's
atmosphere than the notorious Krakatoa eruption in 1883. [9]

Keeping these catastrophic events in mind we can move forward and review
the methods that have been used to date Neanderthal remains. It is not
unreasonable to assume that the aforementioned catastrophic events would
affect any radiocarbon dates applied to the remains of the Quaternary period and
beyond.

It is the author's contention that the Quaternary extinction event began to take
place about 8000 BC, just as geologists have suggested. However, this extinction
event, while abrupt in geological terms, took several thousand years to act out so
that not all megafauna became extinct until the final climax of that period
occurred, namely the great deluge that took place 3554 BC called Noah's Flood.

That the Quaternary extinction event lasted for thousands of years is

acknowledged by A J Stuart of the Department of Biology, University College
London as reported in Nature magazine (24th October, 2004) under the heading,
Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly
mammoth.. The study stated:

"Previous assumptions that the megafauna of northern Eurasia had

disappeared by the Pleistocene/Holocene transition were first
challenged a decade ago by the discovery that the latest woolly
mammoths on Wrangel Island, northeastern Siberia, were
contemporaneous with ancient Egyptian civilization. Here we show
that another spectacular megafaunal species, the giant deer or 'Irish
elk', survived to around 6,900 radiocarbon yr bp (about 7,700 yr ago)
in western Siberia-more than three millennia later than its previously
accepted terminal date-and therefore, that the reasons for its ultimate
demise are to be sought in Holocene

301
 It is because the Biblical Flood and the evidence of the mass extinctions that
took place around the period which geologists have called the Quaternary
extinction event, that we should accept the stories of the Flood as recorded by our
ancestors. It was they who had lived through that catastrophic event and had
managed to survive to tell the tale. We should therefore not ignore what they had
to say simply because evolutionists tell us that the Flood did not happen? In this I
am reminded of the words of Isbrant Ides, an intrepid Russian traveller, who
explored the principal regions of Northern Asia including Siberia in the
seventeenth century. In 1692 he recorded a local recollection of the Flood.

"...there were elephants in this country before the Deluge, when this
climate was warmer, and that their drowned bodies, floating on the
surface of the water of that flood, were at last washed and forced into
subterranean cavities ; but that after this universal deluge, the air,
which before was warm, was changed to cold, and that these bones
have lain frozen in the earth ever since, and so are preserved from
putrefaction till they thaw, and come to light, which is no very
unreasonable conjecture..." [10]

Evidently, the story of the Flood had filtered down through the ages so that
Siberian natives could still tell stories of the effects upon the land, namely that
Siberia had changed from a warm climate to a cold one almost overnight.

While I do not believe that the Deluge was global in itself, what caused it was
and this resulted in worldwide devastation and climate change, and the extensive
flooding was a key element in the extinction of the megafauna that died at that
time.

302
 It is interesting to note what is described as having happened after that
Quaternary extinction event. Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico said in
his paper "Warming Periods in the Holocene Epoch" published in 2007 that "the
increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began 5000
years before present" [11]

In other words this was about 3000 BC and would have coincided with the
atmospheric stabilisation that occurred after the Flood. This nibble of evidence,
and there is more to come, indirectly confirms my thesis that the world's climate
changed dramatically around 3554 BC with the Flood. Furthermore, the results
of Nahle's study also has widespread repercussions as to the validity for the
Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of fossils before the Quaternary extinction event. This is
something that will be discussed later in this chapter.

Before we discuss the methods of dating used by evolutionists we first need to

take a look at the kind of rocks that paleontologists will come across when
searching for human ancestors.

THREE ROCK TYPES

There are three rock types - sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic.

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

303
 Sedimentary rocks are where you will find fossils, the hard remains or imprints
of creatures that had once roamed the earth. How sedimentary rocks are formed
is usually through the action of water such as a river.

A river carries, or transports, pieces of broken rock as it flows along. When the
river reaches a lake or the sea, its load of transported rocks settles to the bottom.
We say that the rocks are deposited. The deposited rocks build up in layers, called
sediments. This process is called sedimentation.

The weight of the sediments on top squashes the sediments at the bottom. This
is called compaction. The water is squeezed out from between the pieces of rock
and crystals of different salts form. The crystals form a sort of glue that sticks or
cements the pieces of rock together. This process is called cementation. These
processes eventually make a type of rock called sedimentary rock. Chalk,
limestone, sandstone and shale are typical sedimentary rocks.

304
 A fossil is created when an animal that may have died in a river settles to the
bottom of the river bed. Normally it would have either decomposed or its flesh
would have been eaten by other creatures so that only the bones would remain.
Over time layers of mud and silt (sediment) eventually cover over the bones and
so they would lay buried for ever, lost and forgotten. However, later the river may
have dried up and the sediments become exposed to the air so that they became
dried out to eventually morph into rock.

The same processes also apply to sea creatures that have died and fallen to the
sea bed where they are covered up by marine sediments. Then due to upheavals
of nature such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts or plate
tectonic movements these sediments may be raised above sea level and turn into

305
 rock. Along comes a paleontologist (or hobbyist like me as shown in the
picture above) who sees the fossil remains of an ammonite, for example, and digs
it out of the sedimentary rock as I did in recently at Charmouth near Lyme Regis
in Dorset, known as the Jurassic Coast.

IGNEOUS ROCKS

Igneous rocks are formed through the cooling and solidification of magma or
lava. They may form with or without crystallisation, either below the surface as
intrusive (plutonic) rocks or on the surface as extrusive (volcanic) rocks.

If the magma cools quickly, small crystals form in the rock. This can happen if
the magma erupts from a volcano. Obsidian and basalt are examples of this type
of rock. They are called extrusive igneous rocks because they form from eruptions
of magma. If the magma cools slowly, large crystals form in the rock. This can
happen if the magma cools deep underground. Granite and gabbro are examples
of this type of rock. They are intrusive igneous rocks because they form from
magma underground, where they are found.

306
 Over seven hundred types of igneous rocks have been identified, most of them
having formed beneath the surface of the earth's crust. Because they are formed
under very high temperatures they will melt any organic tissues that may have
been trapped within them. Hence, igneous rocks do not contain any fossils within
them.

METAMORPHIC ROCKS

Metamorphic rocks are formed under heat and pressure from another kind of
rock, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". The
original rock is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C)
and/or pressure (1500 bars), thereby causing profound physical and/or chemical
change in the original rock, which could be sedimentary rock, igneous rock or
another older metamorphic rock.

Earth movements can cause rocks to be deeply buried or squeezed. As a result,

the rocks are heated and put under great pressure. They do not melt, but the
minerals they contain are changed chemically, forming what are known as
metamorphic rocks.

When a metamorphic rock is formed under pressure it's crystals become

arranged in layers. Slate for example is formed from sedimentary rock shale.
Marble is another example of a metamorphic rock. It is formed from limestone, a
sedimentary rock composed largely of the minerals' calcite and aragonite
(different crystal forms of calcium carbonate). Metamorphic rocks sometimes
contain fossils if they were formed from a sedimentary rock, but the fossils are
usually squashed out of shape.

307
MINERALISED FOSSILS

Besides the three rock types described above we also need to be aware of rocks
containing mineralised fossils. These are a kind of rock that have been formed
when organic remains within the rock has absorbed minerals from the
surrounding material and have gradually turned to rock. Similarly,
permineralisation is a process of fossilisation in which mineral deposits form
internal casts of organisms. Carried by water, these minerals fill the spaces
within organic tissue. Because of the nature of the casts, permineralisation is
particularly useful in studies of the internal structures of organisms, usually of
plants. Most dinosaur bones are permineralised as are petrified wood.

DATING METHODS
We come now to how fossils are dated. Scientists have three methods to choose
from. They can either use two relative dating methods or one absolute dating
technique or a combination of any of them. Relative dating methods are
Biostratigraphy Dating and Law of Superposition, while absolute dating is
accomplished through Radiometric Dating. These are explained below.

RELATIVE DATING: Biostratigraphy Dating

Biostratigraphy dating is the modern name to what was originally called the
Geologic Column (geologic time scale), a system of chronological measurements
that links stratigraphy to time. This has been and is used as a yard stick by
geologists, paleontologists, and other earth scientists to describe the timing and
relationships between events that have occurred throughout Earth's history.

308
 Prior to the discovery of radiometric dating which provided a means of
absolute dating in the early twentieth century, archaeologists and geologists were
largely limited to the use biostratigraphy dating techniques to determine the
geological events. Interestingly, the identification of strata by the fossils that they
contained, was pioneered by catastrophists in the early nineteenth century. These
were William Smith (1769 -1839), Georges Cuvier (1769 - 1832), Jean Baptiste
(1783 - 1875), and Alexandre Brogniart (1770 - 1847).

William Smith worked as a surveyor at the Mearns Pit at High Littleton, part of
the Somerset coal field and the Somerset Coal Canal. As he observed the rock
layers (or strata) at the pit, he realised that they were arranged in a predictable
pattern and that the various strata could always be found in the same relative
positions. Additionally, each particular stratum could be identified by the fossils
it contained, and the same succession of fossil groups from older to younger
rocks could be found in many parts of England.

During subsequent travels for the canal company until 1799 when Smith was
dismissed he continually took samples and mapped the locations of the various
strata, displayed the vertical extent of the strata, drawing cross-sections and
tables of what he saw. As a result he amassed a large and valuable collection of
fossils and documents of the strata that he had examined through his
investigations of canals, road and railway cuttings, quarries and escarpments
across the country.

309
 William Smith came to the conclusion that if two strata (however distant in
space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, the chances were
that they had been laid down at the same time. Georges Cuvier, the famous
French naturalist, noted Smith's results with great interest, and suggested that
rocks containing similar fossils in France were the same age as those in England.
Thus was born the idea that certain types of fossils existing for a specific period
in earth's history could be used to index the layers of rock bearing these fossils
even over great geographic distances.

The Smith-Cuvier discoveries were termed the "Principle of Faunal

Succession" which says that fossils and groups of fossils exist for limited
amounts of time, and that fossil plants and animals appear in the rock record in a
definitive pattern. This led to the creation of a relative chronology of Earth
history, or the geologic column or as it is called today the geologic time scale.

It should be noted that it was Creationist scientists who developed the geologic
column and it was clear to them that the world had been rocked by numerous
catastrophic extinction events (now proven true today) and what they saw were
the evidence of those events recorded in the rocks. It is not true to say that this
was an evolutionist invention, although later understandingly, this geological tool
was used by geologists and paleontologists alike, who were predominantly
evolutionists, to assist them in dating the fossils that they uncovered during their
excavations.

The geologic column suffered from one major flaw. When geologists
constructed the column they based it on the relative positions of different strata
layers and what fossils lay within them. They then estimated the time scales
based on studying the size of the sediments and the estimated rates of various
kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification based upon
uniformitarian principles. This meant that the ages of various rock strata
were based upon the "best guess" principle. Needless to say these dates
were the subject of considerable debate over the years. However, the principle
behind the geological column remained basically sound.

One could for example, find a layer of sedimentary rock with ammonites
embedded in it and then find a similar strata elsewhere also containing
ammonite fossils. This then would suggest that the sediments containing the
ammonites were laid down around the same time, regardless where they were
found. With this in mind it became possible to create "Index Fossils" such as
ammonites, and by identifying these in the sediment rock and referring to the
geological column, one could then date the strata accordingly. This would appear
to be a brillant method of dating sediments except that the dating of the different
epochs are based upon assumed unverified dates, not absolute dates. It
would take many years before technologies became available to be able to do
"absolute dating". Consequently, Neanderthals were (and still are) dated by
"biostratigraphy dating" and sometimes also in conjunction with another relative
dating technique called the Law of Superposition.

310
RELATIVE DATING: Law of Superposition
What happens if you find a fossil in a sedimentary layer that cannot be
identified by index fossils? Then you would apply the Law of Superposition. This
is a general law stating that in any sequence of sediments or rocks that have not
been overturned, the youngest sediments or rocks are at the top of the sequence
and the oldest are at the bottom. In other words new rock layers are always
deposited on top of existing rock layers. Therefore, deeper layers must be older
than layers closer to the surface. Hence, if you have identified an index fossil in
the layer beneath where the fossil had been discovered, it follows that the layer
above the index fossil must be younger. This of course assumes that the
sediments have not been distorted and overturned by earth movements.

311
 The idea that youngest sediments or rocks are at the top of the sequence and
the oldest are at the bottom may sound like common sense and it is, but this
provides no dating of any kind. All we can say is that a specific layer is younger or
older relative to another layer.

One cannot determine an exact age for any of the layers, because sedimentary
and volcanic deposition do not accumulate at a constant rate. Plus we have no
idea how much time might have passed by between each period of deposition.
The Law of Superposition therefore can only be used as a guide, and either index
fossils are sought in the layers above or below the layer of interest to give an idea
how old a stratum is. With the advent of radiometric dating such as Potassium-
Argon dating (K-Ar dating), which is based on the measurement radioactive
decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar), it is possible to date lava
deposits. However, this dating method cannot date sedimentary layers.

ABSOLUTE DATING: Radiometric Dating

Absolute dating is where the object or fossil itself is dated "absolutely". This is
accomplished by using a radiometric dating technique. This technique examines
the decay rate of a radioactive isotope of an object by looking at its half life to
determine how long ago the object was formed.

The primary radioactive isotopes using in radiometric dating fossils are

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) and Potassium-Argon (K-Ar). What now follows is a
brief overview of these dating methods which will be discussed in greater detail
later, because these and biostratigraphy dating that have been used for dating
Neanderthals - the subject of this book.

Carbon-14 dating is a method used for dating organic material that are less
than 50,000 years of age and found in sedimentary rocks. This method relies on

312
 the uptake of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of carbon, carbon-14 by
all living things. When living things die, they stop absorbing carbon-14, and the
radioactive clock is "set"! By measuring how much carbon-14 there is compared
to normal carbon (C-12) then an absolute date can be determined, or at least that
is the theory. Hence, any dead material found incorporated within sedimentary
deposits is a possible candidate for carbon-14 dating.

Potassium-Argon dating is a method for dating igneous rocks created from

magma or lava that are more than 100,000 years old. Potassium is an abundant
element in the Earth's crust where one isotope, potassium-40, is radioactive and
decays to two different daughter products, calcium-40 and argon-40, by two
different decay methods. This is not a problem because the production ratio of
these two daughter products is precisely known, and is always constant: 11.2%
becomes argon-40 and 88.8% becomes calcium-40.

Argon is a gas so that whenever rock is melted to become magma or lava, the
argon tends to escape. Once the molten material hardens, it begins to trap the
new argon produced since the hardening took place. In this way the potassium-
argon clock is clearly reset when an igneous rock is formed. In its simplest form,
the geologist simply needs to measure the relative amounts of potassium-40 and
argon-40 to date the rock.

We shall now go through each dating technique to determine if the methods

used have been sufficiently accurate to justify the dates assigned to hominid
remains, especially those related to Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and humans.

DATING NEANDERTHALS
It is not the scope of this book to endorse or criticise the Geological Time
Frame at this time as the subject in itself is enormous. This is discussed in greater
detail in the other books of this series "Creation Revisited" and "The Deluge as
History". What is important to consider is that it is my contention that the dating
methods used to date Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and Homo sapiens have been
inadequate for the task. Dates assigned to these hominids through the use of
radiocarbon dating techniques have been incorrect and grossly exaggerated, as I
shall now demonstrate. Let me begin by concentrating on the dating of
Neanderthals and in particular the one discovered at la Chapelle-aux-Saints in
1908 which we shall use as a case study. Let us take a look at that date to see how
it was ascertained.

If the reader may recall it was La Chapelle-aux-Saints in south-western France

that a nearly complete skeleton of a man who would have been elderly by
Neanderthal standards was discovered. The bones were analysed between 1911
and 1913 by the famous French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule who presented
the Neanderthal as an apelike ancestor of man. What is interesting is that he
dated the remains to be 50,000 years old. This is amazing because today the La
Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal is estimated to be about 60,000 years old.

313
 How could Boule have got so close to the figure that is generally accepted
today when there was no radiometric dating available in his day? The answer is
simple. He referred to the Geologic Column (biostratigraphy dating) which by
this time had been established although its structure was still being developed
and therefore any dates derived from it would be somewhat speculative. Even so
it was better than nothing.

How then was the figure 50,000 years obtained by Boule? We turn to
Professor Oliver C. Farrington who was Curator of Geology of the Field Museum
of Natural History of Chicago in the 1930s. Writing in 1929 he provides the
answer. Farrington makes it quite clear that the dating of the Neanderthal
remains were based upon the nature and location of the deposits in which they
had been found and the perceived dating of the animal remains that were also
found at the site.

"The determination of the period at which Neanderthal man lived is

gained chiefly from two lines of evidence one the nature and location of
the deposits in which his Neanderthal (Mousterian) Man 9 remains
occur and the other the species of animals in connection with which his
remains are found. From a study of these it has been learned beyond
doubt that it was during the Great Ice Age that Neanderthal man
inhabited Europe and that of the four great glacial advances and
retreats which characterized this Age, he chiefly existed during the time
after the Third or Rissian and through that of the Fourth or Wurmian,
(the last great glaciation).... The remains of animals found in
connection with those of Neanderthal man include the mammoth,
bison, reindeer, wild horse and cave bear. These sufficiently indicate a
cold climate." [12]

It is evident that Boule had interpreted the age of Neanderthal Man found at
La Chapelle-aux-Saints based upon what was called the fourfold Alpine glacial
chronology published by Penck and Brukner in 1909. The Wurm glacial stage was
estimated to be dated between 110,000 and 10,000 ybp (years before present).
This means that Boule had a 100,000 year window of opportunity to date the
Neanderthal bones and place them within that period.

"In Europe, before studies of deep sea sediments were made,

Pleistoncene chronological events were determined on the basis of
piecemeal evidence from terrestial sediments. The earliest and wildely
accepted chronology was the classic fourfold subdivision of
Pleistoncene of climatic Pleistocene events in the Alps by Penck and
Brukner (1909). These glacial stage names, from oldest to youngest, are
Gunz glacial, Mindel glacial, Riss glacial, and Wurm glacial.... The last
glacial stages (Alpine: Wurm; Dutch/European: Weichselian; British
Island: Ipswichian) began aproximately 110,000 ybp and ended 10,000

314
 ybp at the end of the Pleistocene (Stuart, 1982, 1988)" [13]

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out how Boule obtained the
date for the Neanderthal remains found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. He clearly
referred to the fourfold Alpine glacial chronology and took a safe course. He
declared that the Neanderthal remains were 50,000 years old, which just
happens to be the half-way point between the two dates (110,000 minus 10,000
divided by 2) assigned to the Wurm ice age. Not exactly scientific was it? One
could have just have easily created a dartboard marked from 100,000 years to
10,000 years around the rim and throw a dart at it and where it landed, to choose
that date instead. In effect, most fossils have been dated this way, so despite all
his faults Boule only did what others had done and would do later in years to
come.

In both cases, the dating of the glacial stages of the Ice Age and the dating of
the Neanderthal man was based upon assumptions and not on scientific
certainty. It should be noted too that "These Alpine glacial stages have been
widely used, and one still finds references to them (especially the younger stages)
in the recent literature (e.g., Fitze 1995)". [14] And, even in 1999 the end of the
Pleistoncene was said to have come to an end 10,000 BP (before present), the
same time as that accepted by the INQUA Congress in Paris as the
Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in 1995. That is what I call a lucky guess, except
of course it is not. It was just a case of keeping to the status quo that the last Ice
Age came to an end ten thousand years ago because the hundred year old
geologic column says so.

THE MAMMOTH SHOWS THE WAY

The seventeenth century traveller Isbrant Ides of whom I mentioned earlier
was told that "...there were elephants in this country before the Deluge, when this
climate was warmer". This poses an interesting question. Is there any evidence to
support the belief that at one time mammoths lived in a warmer environment
than which is found in Siberia today? The answer is a big YES! Which is strange
because this is not what we find in text books or in the movies. Here the
mammoth is often depicted as an ice age animal that was able to survive the cold,
harsh and bleak conditions of that prevailed during this period. This scenario is
entirely false! Pictures of the animal living in the snow and ice of the glacial
period are complete fabrications that have no basis in fact. The true facts of the
case is that a mammoth if placed in Siberia today, would not be able to survive
even one harsh winter of that region. "In Siberia, the winter temperature can
drop to -60C, making it one of the coldest places to live in the world....65% of
Russia sits on permafrost, and in some places in Siberia the frozen ground is
1500m deep." [15]

It is true that large mammals can usually tolerate a fair amount of cold and it is
clear that mammoths were covered with the same kind of double fur coat that we

315
 find on other large mammals in northern climates today which are cold
tolerant. But could mammoths tolerate nine to twelve months of bitter cold with
even colder wind-chill temperatures in blizzards? Vereshchagin and Baryshnikov
of the G.F Zoological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1990 said no!

"There would be no place for mammoths in the present arctic tundra of

Eurasia with its dense snow driven by the winds." [16]

The evidence is overwhelming that in the days before the Quaternary

extinction event Siberia was a climatically different place from that of today.
Although mammoths are often described as ice age animals this is a rather
misleading description. Yes, mammoths did live during the periods of the last
two ice ages but the lands in which they inhabited were not covered by glacial ice-
sheets. Based on the large estimated number of mammoths that roamed these
lands which also encompassed Siberia (and Alaska) the area is today recognised
as having been mostly one huge grassland, called the mammoth steppe or steppe
tundra. We know from the stomach contents of preserved mammoths that they
fed on grasses, as well as mosses, sedges, herbaceous pollens and spores, and
fragments of willow and bilberry. Some rare poppies and buttercups have also
been found too. [17] These plants do not grow in Siberia today.

"Despite the fact that living elephants are mixed feeders that are browsers,
woolly mammoths were grazers that fueled their large bodies with grass." says
Diego Álvarez-Lao from the University of Oviedo, when talking about the
discovery of mammoth remains uncovered in Padu in Spain. [18]

In order to maintain a large variety of herbaceous vegetation on the mammoth

316
 steppe one would require a long growing season with warm soil and rapid
spring growth. Winters must have been fairly mild compared to present day
Siberian extremes with probably only light snowfall. (Woolly rhinos coexisted
with mammoths and had the snow been deep, the rhinos considerable body
weight, short legs and the huge pressures imposed by its feet would have made
tackling deep snow impossible). The growth pattern of the mammals also
reinforces the deduction of a longer growing season.

The current climate of the sub-arctic Siberian steppes could not have
supported large herds of mammoths if one assumes that they required a similar
volume of food as modern elephants. Comparing living elephants to mammoths,
the daily requirement for a woolly mammoth would have been about 200 to 300
kg of succulent vegetation and 130-190 litres of water! And that is just for one
mammoth!

Today, much of Siberia is covered by deep and permanently frozen ground

known as permafrost. The existing tundra vegetation is very tough, slow growing,
laced with bitter chemicals and not very nutritious. The point I am making here
is that mammoths needed a grassland environment with a long growing season,
mild winters and very little permafrost, quite different from the climate in the
region today. It is evident therefore that before the Quaternary extinction event
this is the kind of habitat that mammoths lived in and in their millions. Darwin
in a letter to Sir Henry Howorth admitted that the extinction of mammoths in
Siberia was for him an insoluble problem. [19] However, it is only a problem if
one denies that catastrophic events have shaped our planet, which of course
Darwin refused to believe.

From time to time details of a frozen mammoth having been found almost
intact in Siberia is published in the world's news media. For example, the most
recent mammoth uncovered was found in 2012 by an eleven year Russian boy
named Zhenya Salinder. Officially known as the Sopkarga mammoth the beast
was found within the permafrost of the Taymyr peninsula and scientists laboured
for a week with axes and steam to dig it out of the frozen ground where it had
been encased in for centuries. [20]

317
 The finding of intact mammoths are quite rare and yet once millions of
mammoths and other ice age fauna roamed the Siberian grasslands? What
happened to them? They are still there. "The north of Yakutia has long been
known to be an immense storehouse of frozen disjointed bones of many
hundreds of thousands of large Pleistocene mammals - mammoths, horses,
woolly rhinoceroses, bison, musk-oxen and "horned cattle", as the first Russian
travellers called them", says professor Nikolai Vereshchagin. [21]

Professor Nikolai Vereshchagin, is Vice-President of the "Mammoth

Committee of the Russian Academy of Sciences", and he is the top expert on
woolly mammoths in Siberia. He has spent nearly half a century researching the
mammoth fauna. Since 1940, Vereshchagin has identified approximately a
million bone fragments from many types of animals found within the permafrost
of Eurasia. He states that the abundance of remains in Siberia is remarkable.
There are many hundreds of thousands of large mammals buried in Siberia with
many millions of bones.

In a report in the Smithsonian magazine, John Massey Stewart refers to an

estimate made by Vereshchagin for a section along the Arctic coast between the
Yana and Kolyma rivers.

"Through such causes almost 50,000 mammoth tusks are said to have
been found in Siberia between 1660 and 1915, serving an extensive
mammoth ivory trade. But this is nothing compared to those still
buried. according to Vereshchagin, who calculates that the heavy
erosion of the Arctic coast spills thousands of tusks and tens of
thousands of buried bones each year into the sea and that along the
600-mile coastal shallows between the Yana and Kolyma [rivers] lie
more than half a million tons of mammoth tusks with another 150,000
tons in the bottom of the lakes of the coastal plain." [22]

318
 There are so many mammoths buried in Siberia that today without it many
crafts people in China would be out of a job. The international trade in elephant
ivory, with rare exceptions, has been outlawed since 1989 after populations of the
African giants dropped from the millions in the mid-20th century to some
600,000 by the end of the 1980s. The ban left hundreds of traditional carvers in
the south China region facing an uncertain future, until they turned to a global
stock of ancient tusks buried mostly in Siberia, but also in Europe and north
America.

Today Amy Wong displays in her shop in Hong Kong's renowned Hollywood
Road antique strip a spectacular 380,000 dollar carved tusk depicting rain forest
beasts in her window display at Cho's Art Crafts. She turned to mammoth ivory
ten years ago and now employs ninety carvers across the border in mainland
China. In 2009 Hong Kong customs cleared twenty-one tonnes of mammoth
ivory, on top of the seventy tonnes cleared in the two previous years, according to
official data. [23]

The huge quantity of mammoths, horses, woolly rhinoceroses, bison, musk-

oxen buried in the permafrost of Siberia poses considerable problems of
explanation today as it did when Darwin described the enigma an "insoluble
problem". However, it is only a problem if one only applies uniformitarian rules.
Normally when an animal dies its body will decompose (or be eaten by predators)
leaving the bones insitu. Then these will disintegrate over time through the
actions of weathering, rain and acids in the soil on which they lay. That is why,
although countless trillions of animals have lived on the earth, we do not find
ourselves knee deep in animal bones.

How then does one explain that in Siberia we are confronted by millions of
bones of mammoths and other megafauna buried in the permafrost? Often they
are mangled together like some giant mixer had grabbed them all and thrown
them into one jumbled mass to be frozen where they lay. Clearly something
happened that did not allow for normal uniformitarianism mechanisms to work.
Only the power of water could have thrown such great beasts into such twisted
and torn assemblages of bones.

319
 Furthermore, although I have discussed Siberia, the scenes of mass
destruction are replicated in the northern areas of Canada and Alaska. Professor
Frank Cumming Hibben (1910-2002), who had been professor at the University
of New Mexico, described in 1961 the scene of carnage that he had witnessed
while exploring the gold fields of the Yukon. He saw bulldozers pushing the
melting muck into sluice boxes for the extraction of gold. As the dozers' blades
scooped up the melting gunk, mammoth tusks and bones "rolled up like shavings
before a giant plane... The stench of rotting flesh - tons of it - could be smelled for
miles around".

What Hibben says in his book "The Lost Americans" should give the reader
pause for thought.

"Mammals there were in abundance, dumped in all attitudes of death.

Most of them were pulled apart by some unexplained prehistoric
catastrophic disturbance. Legs and torsos and heads and fragments
were found together in piles or scattered separately... The young lie
with the old, foal with dam and calf with cow. Whole herds of animals
were apparently killed together, overcome by some common power".
He came to the conclusion that, "Throughout the Alaskan mucks there
is evidence of atmospheric disturbances of unparalleled violence.
Mammoth and bison alike were torn and twisted as though by a cosmic
hand in godly rage." [24]

The violent deaths of countless megafauna across Siberia, Alaska and Canada
can only be explained by some kind of natural disaster of unprecedented global
dimensions. This catastrophe we call the Quaternary extinction event, and this is
usually dated around 8000 BC. However, I am convinced through copious

320
 research material that their final extinction occurred several thousands of
years earlier, at the time when the Deluge was said to have occurred. After that
event, the climate in the areas where once the magafauna had grazed changed
dramatically so that some of their carcasses that were buried in the muck
deposited by flood waters had no time to decompose before they were suddenly
frozen beneath snow and ice where they have remained to this very day.

We can be certain that prior to the Quaternary extinction event the climate in
Siberia was such that it allowed millions of megafauna like mammoths to flourish
in rich grasslands for thousands of years. However, after the extinction event the
climate changed so dramatically that the grasslands became a frozen wasteland
in which the shattered and mixed bones of millions of animals who had died
clearly under catastrophic circumstances were entombed in permafrost where
they have remained to this day. Few if any mammoths survived the disaster.

It is my contention that any dates that have been assigned to Neanderthals

prior to the Quaternary extinction because of the changes in climate that took
place then and thereafter, are grossly incorrect and cannot be relied upon. This is
what I shall now demonstrate in the following section. The premise is that if the
mammoths were destroyed in an environmental cataclysm that took place
between 8000 BC (the Quaternary extinction) and 3554 BC (the Flood, the last
event of the Quaternary extinction) then the remains of the Neanderthals found
amongst the megafauna must also have dated about this time. They would not be
50,000 years old as has been claimed.

CARBON-14 DATING
Until the advent of radiometric dating the only way Neanderthal remains could
be dated was by referring to a speculative pre-defined table of the Pleistocene
epochs which was called the Geologic Column. Although this table served as a
good reference point the dating of the different epochs was of a very hypothetical
nature. Claims that such and such a Neanderthal skull was 30,000 or 40,000
thousand of years old was really just a question of choosing somewhere in the
10,000 and 100,000 year period that had been assigned to what was believed to
have been the time when Neanderthals lived on the earth.

With the wide acceptance of evolution and the interpretation of Neanderthals

being ancestors of man, there were few dissenters who had reason to disagree
with what was being presented by evolutionists and geologists, apart from the
odd young earth creationist making a few noises of protest. Even so, what was
needed was a way of dating fossils, especially with respect to our human
ancestors, so that they could be dated "absolutely". This would then enable the
geologic column to be verified and fine tuned to perfection - because it still was
based upon unproven assumptions.

In the 1940s, researchers began to study the effect of cosmic radiation on the
upper atmosphere. It was to prove very fruitful. In 1947 an ingenious method of

321
 investigating the age of organic remains was developed by Willard Frank
Libby, an American physical chemist of the University of Chicago. This method
known as radiocarbon dating was based upon the observation that when cosmic
rays hit the upper atmosphere they break the common nitrogen-14 (N-14) into
hydrogen and a radioactive isotope of carbon called carbon-14 (C-14) is created.

Libby wrote in his article on Radiocarbon Dating in the PENNSEE Journal in

1955 a brief overview of his theory.

"The law of radioactive decay is that a given fraction is always lost in a

given time. The half life of radiocarbon, 5,730 years, is the time for 50%
loss. Thus, after a tree has fallen, 5,730 years later it will have half of
the radiocarbon content of a living tree. For any other ratio larger or
smaller, the age is lesser or greater. If the content is one quarter of that
living material, the age is twice 5,730 years. This continues until it
reaches an unmeasurably low figure at about 50,000 years. Thus,
radiocarbon dating applies only to materials that have not been dead
longer than 50,000 years. Most of human history falls in this span,
however, and radio-carbon dating covers the great reaches of time
most important to human history." [25]

322
THE C-14/C-12 RATIO
Put simply, carbon is found naturally in all living organisms and is replenished
in the tissues by eating other organisms or by breathing air that contains carbon.
At any particular time all living organisms have approximately the same ratio of
carbon 12 (C-12) to carbon 14 (C-14) in their tissues. When an organism dies it
ceases to replenish carbon in its tissues and the decay of C-14 to C-12 changes the
ratio of C-12 to C-14. This means that one can compare the ratio of C-12 to C-14
in dead material to the ratio when the organism was alive to estimate the date of
its death.

Libby's radiocarbon dating method does seem to be the perfect dating solution
and for all intents and purposes it is. In theory all one has to do was measure how
much C-14 was in a dead organism and compare it to how much Carbon dioxide
(C-12) was in the atmosphere (present day) and bingo! You had a C-14 to C-12
ratio from which you could calculate the age of organism. This was well and good
except one assumes that the level of C-12 was the same at the time when the
organism died to when it was dated in the present day. This is an assumption
which I show later is severely flawed for reasons I will explain. In the meantime,
a base figure is required upon which any date can be measured. This it the half-
life of the radioactive isotope of C-14.

The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes
half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the
half-life of carbon 14 is said to be 5730 years, although some scientists say it is
5770 years, which makes things very confusing. If the amount of carbon 14 is
halved every 5730 years, it will not take very long to reach an amount that is too
small to analyse. This means that carbon 14 dating is not particularly helpful for

323
 very recent deaths and deaths more than 50,000 years ago. Furthermore,
when finding the age of an organic organism we need to not only consider the
half-life of carbon 14 but also the rate of decay, which is calculated to be -0.693.

For example, say a fossil is found that has 35% carbon 14 compared to a living
sample. How old would the fossil be? We can use the formula that Libby
developed for carbon 14 dating to find the answer. In theory it would be 8680
years old as illustrated in the picture below.

Although the logic behind the formula and calculation method seems plausible
and easy to do it is subject to a serious flaw. Let me explain through another
example. Let us discuss a tree that lived 2865 years ago but then died. We would
expect to obtain that figure when we sampled a piece of the now dead tree today
using Libby's formula. However, the ratio depends upon the ASSUMPTION that
current C-12 levels were the same at the time when the tree lived.

Science cannot be based upon assumptions but must follow a method of

research in which a problem is identified, relevant data gathered, a hypothesis is
formulated from the data, and then a hypothesis is empirically tested. This is
called the Scientific method and here in this example Libby failed miserably. One
cannot assume anything. If the data consists of preconceived assumptions, then
this is not the scientific method and will be a recipe for disaster.

What would happen if the C-12 levels were higher today than it was then. What
if the C-12 levels were 100 ppm 2865 years ago and 1000 ppm today? The result
from the equation would be ten times less that what it should have been and this
would suggest that the tree was much older that it really was. It might now
register as being 5% compared to a recent sample, instead of 50% of the half-life
of C-14. This would make it appear to be closer to 60,000 years limit of
radiocarbon dating than 2865 years, the tree's real age.

324
 Keep in mind that radiocarbon dating cannot be used for samples older than
around 60,000 years, or ten half-lives (1/1000 of the original sample). You
cannot for example measure dinosaur fossils with this method of dating. This is
important as we shall learn later.

The critical issue here then is, can scientists make such a blatant
ASSUMPTION and say that C-12 levels were the same today as they were as far
back as 50,000 years? The answer is they they cannot because we now know that
C-12 levels were much less in the past than today, even in historical times.

The graph presented by Professor Nahle depicted above, which is based on

EPICA Dome 2 Ice core samples, shows that five thousand years ago (coinciding
with date of the Flood) C-12 levels began to rise steadily, and then in the last
hundred years or so due to the increase in carbon emissions from the industrial
revolution, the rise in greenhouse gases and Atomic bomb detonations - C-12
levels have shot up. In other words, C-12 levels are not the same as they were in
the past. They are much higher today! Consequently, any dates calculated by
radiocarbon dating will be wrong and so it has proved to be.

THE 1950 CALIBRATION FUDGE

It follows that the closer you are to the present age, the more accurate carbon
dating will be. But even here we are confronted with difficulties. Between the
years of 1700-1950 AD making precise calibrated ages in this region is impossible
as is noted by the NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory.

"In the period of about 1700-1950 AD, the number of rapid fluctuations
of C14 content due to solar activity, and also due to the addition of a lot
of "dead" carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning of fossil fuels,
makes precise calibrated ages in this region impossible.

325
 Sometimes, some regions can be excluded, but in general the entire
range is quoted as the calibrated age. This region has sometimes been
called the "Stradivarius gap" to illustrate the limitations of radiocarbon
dating." [26] [bold mine]

The "Stradivarius gap" was so named because violins made by Antonio

Stradivarius (1644-1737) fell within this period of time. Dating within the period
of this gap was very difficult because of "the number of rapid fluctuations of 14C
content". Hang on a minute! The entire radiocarbon method was sold based on
the assumption that C-14 levels were constant throughout the ages. The
"Stradivarius gap" clearly shows that this assumption is completely erroneous.
Changes to the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, irregular cosmic radiation
and the varying amounts of C-14 taken up by organisms all effect the C-12 levels
in the atmosphere.

If the variation in C-14 levels was not bad enough things get even more
confusing because radiocarbon measurements are always reported in terms of
years "before present" (BP), but this is based upon 5568 years and not 5730 years
for the half-life of C-14 as originally conceived by Libby. Why is this? Libby got it
wrong.

The half-life decay rate of C-14 as originally measured by Libby was based
upon being 5568 years but he got this wrong. When it was later found to be
incorrect this was quickly changed, but by the time the error was detected,
thousands of radiocarbon dates had been pronounced. It would be very difficult
to change these so it was decided that those dates were to be referred to as raw
dates and that a correction of 162 years should be added bringing them and
future ones in line with the true C-14 decay rate half-life of 5,730 years based on
calculations made in 1950. Hence, "For historical reasons, uncalibrated
radiocarbon measurements are often referred to a half-life of 5,568 years but this
discrepancy is corrected during calibration." [28]

On the Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating laboratory website, the company

clarifies things a bit better.

"It is also worthy to note that the half-life used in carbon dating

326
 calculations is 5568 years, the value worked out by chemist Willard
Libby, and not the more accurate value of 5730 years, which is known
as the Cambridge half-life. Although it is less accurate, the Libby half-
life was retained to avoid inconsistencies or errors when comparing
carbon 14 test results that were produced before and after the
Cambridge half-life was derived." [29]

In other words radiocarbon dating has to be fudged in order to resolve an

incorrect calculation for the half-life of carbon 14 made by Libby and his team.
Unfortunately, even with this fudging of the figures, radiocarbon dating on its
own is universally acknowledged as being unreliable. It has to be calibrated by
another dating method, and if the C-14 date does not match this dating method it
is dropped. That is how good C-14 dating is.

TREE RING DATING TO THE RESCUE

In the beginning Libby's radiocarbon methodology was initially calibrated by
dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii.
Although there were discrepancies, the dating was fairly close so Libby's
technique won him the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. However, the fact that
there were discrepancies, albeit small for known archaeological samples, meant
that some form of calibration was need. The solution was tree ring dating and it
proved to be radiocarbon's saving grace as Libby himself acknowledged.

"The assumption that the concentration of radiocarbon in

living matter remains constant over all of time is a bold one.
It appears to be nearly correct; however, deviations of a few percent do
occur. These are determined by the measurement of radiocarbon in the
wood in trees dated by the number of rings found. The Bristlecone Pine
is the most famous and most useful tree yet discovered. In this way it
has been possible to determine the accuracy of the basic assumption
back to some 8,000 years, and a correction curve has been produced
which allows absolute dating by radiocarbon back to 8,000 years. The
deviation is about 8% at maximum although it is not entirely clear that
the 8,000 years' deviation is decreasing from its maximum at about
6,000 years ago." [30] [bold mine]

Today, tree ring dating is critical in ensuring that any date produced by
radiocarbon dating is validated. In other words radiocarbon dates cannot be
trusted. This was recognised even by Libby back in the 1950's as it is now. The
Brazilian Journal of Physics in 2008 says very much what Libby said fifty years
before confirming that tree ring dating is necessary for calibrating the
radiocarbon dating.

327
 "Although the Conventional Radiocarbon Age obtained in different
laboratories can be compared at any time, the application of
radiocarbon dating in archaeology, for example, requires a more
accurate age estimate. Not only the known systematical errors
introduced in the calculation are a source of uncertainty, but also the
very assumption that the isotopic ratio of the atmospheric reservoir of
CO2 remains constant through time is not true... To account for any of
such error sources, the Radiocarbon Age has to be calibrated on the
basis of an independent dating technique. Therefore, empirical
databases of dendrochronologically dated wood samples provide a fine
scale set of known age results for comparison." [31] [bold mine]

Professor Paul Blackwell of the Department of Probability & Statistics,

University of Sheffield also emphasised the need for an "estimated" calibration
curve.

"As discussed in some detail in Aitken (1990) and Bowman (1990),

quite quickly after radiocarbon dating was discovered, it became
clear that Libby's assumption of constant 14C levels in the
atmosphere does not hold. The level is affected by very many
complex factors that have proven impossible to model
mechanistically... Put loosely, we need a calibration curve. Since the
factors affecting variations in 14C level are too complex to model
mechanistically the only way to get such a curve is to estimate it from
data." [32] [bold mine]

In order to remedy the discrepancies of radiocarbon dating dates, it became

necessary to "estimate" a calibration curve, and Hans Suess (1909-1993), an
Austrian born American physical chemist and nuclear physicist developed such a
tool. He radiocarbon-dated samples of trees (bristlecone pine, used tree rings for
its calendar axis) that had already been calendar-dated using tree-ring dating
(dendrochronology) and this enabled him to plot a calibration curve.

This sounded creditable but there were issues that needed to be resolved. The
most questionable assumption in dendrochronology is the rate of ring formation.
General principles of biology and climate suggest that trees add only one ring
each year. Individual bristlecone pines, which grow very slowly in arid, high
altitude areas of western North America, will sometimes skip a year of growth.

C. W. Ferguson of the University of Arizona, who has been collecting and

studying specimens of bristlecone pine wood from the White Mountains along
the California-Nevada border, described the problems he experienced.

328
 "In bristlecone pines, problems of cross dating are caused by so-called
'missing' rings associated with the extremely slow growth rate of this
species on arid sites. One specimen, for example, contains more than
1,100 annual rings in 12.7 centimetres of radius. ... In some instances, 5
per cent or more of the annual rings may be missing along a given
radius that spans many centuries." [33]

Skipping rings might make a tree appear younger than it really is, but
dendrochronologists fill in the missing information by comparing rings from
other trees. But that raises another problem. A great deal of subjective
interpretation is required to judge between true and false rings and true and false
pattern matches between different pieces of wood. Cross matching of one pattern
with another is largely a matter of visual inspection and judgment. However,
matching a specimen with hundreds of rings against a chronology with
thousands of rings is not easy so it is highly probable that matches are made that
are not really correct at all. [34]

While there are some difficulties associated with tree ring dating, nonetheless
as an aid to calibrating radiocarbon dating, it is a useful tool. However, it is a
limited tool. The oldest known living trees are the bristlecone pines as used by
Hans Suess for his calibration curve. Famed dendrochnologist Edmund
Schulman found more than twenty trees that were over 4000 years old.

The oldest one Schulman discovered he estimated it to be 4600 years old and
he called it Methuselah, named after the oldest man recorded in the Bible. [35]
Another bristlecone specimen, WPN-114 and nicknamed "Prometheus", was
more than 4,844 years old when cut down in 1964, with an estimated
germination date of 2880 BC. [36] This means that there are no trees living today
that existed before 3554 BC, the date of the Flood.

Hang on a moment! What about the news item that described the, WORLD'S
OLDEST LIVING TREE - 9550 YEARS OLD - DISCOVERED IN
SWEDEN which announced across the world in 2008. First, a look at the tree
clearly shows that it was barely sixty years old, so how could scientists declare it
was 9550 years old? In many newspapers they neglected to mention the fact that
the tree itself was not old, only the root system was - apparently. The headlines
were very misleading. The National Geographic magazine clarified things. "The
visible portion of the 13-foot-tall (4-meter-tall) "Christmas tree" isn't ancient, but
its root system has been growing for 9,550 years, according to a team led by Leif
Kullman, professor at Umeå University's department of ecology and
environmental science in Sweden." [37]

In the story it is the root system that is being talked about. The roots had been
radiocarbon dated and the scientists, disregarding any contamination from the
soil that might have occurred, sensationalised their findings to newspapers who
did not report all the facts. The newspaper headlines should have said instead
ROOTS FOUND 9550 YEARS OLD - DISCOVERED IN SWEDEN, but

329
 that does not have the same effect, does it? It certainly does not invalidate the
fact that there are no trees living today that pre-date the Quaternary extinction
event and the Flood.

Tree ring dating has proved an invaluable tool but it is not without its
problems. Besides missed rings or duplicate rings and the possibility of
misreading the tree ring patterns this method of dating it is far from perfect. To
begin with there are more than one tree ring chronological table that is available
for reference and this brings its own problems. To illustrate what I mean one only
has to consider the publication and then the subsequent withdrawal of two
European tree-ring chronologies once thought to have been reliable.

According to famous archaeologist David Rohl, the "Sweet Track" chronology

from south-west England was 'remeasured' when it did not agree with the
published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). [38] Also, the
construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in
deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German
study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. [38]

Problems not withstanding tree ring dating has proved its worth time and time
again, and it has been shown to be an invaluable validation tool for radiocarbon
dating for objects that are less than 2300 years old. If a date is given by
tree ring dating is compared to that of one derived from radiocarbon dating, it is
the former that is accepted. A good example of why radiocarbon dating is the
preferred option can be shown in connection with the dating of the round table at
Winchester castle.

Winchester is well known for the Great Hall of its castle, which was built in the
12th century. The Great Hall was rebuilt sometime between 1222 AD and 1235
AD, and still exists in this form today. It is famous for King Arthur's Round

330
 Table, which has hung in the hall from at least 1463 AD. When it was dated by
radiocarbon dating it was found that it was constructed 1340 AD, in the
fourteenth century. As it was made of oak it was possible to take a core and read
its rings.

Tree ring dating showed that it was actually constructed in 1270 AD in the
thirteenth century. Round Table scholar Martin Biddle stated that historical data
supported the earlier date and that the table had been constructed for the
occasion of Edward I Arthurian themed tournament in 1290 AD. Radiocarbon
dating had failed and the contradiction of results was a mystery that could not be
reconciled. Both methods had been scrupulously done.

ASSUMPTIONS IS NOT A VALID SCIENCE METHOD

Radiocarbon dating is entirely based upon assumptions and the
greatest of these is that the ratio of C-12/C-14 levels in the atmosphere have been
the same in the past and in all areas of the world as it is today. This presumption
is integral to the entire validity of radiocarbon dating because how could one
measure reliably the C-14 levels of a dead organism unless the same conditions
existed today as it did then?

It is now known, however, that the proportion of C-14 to ordinary C-12 has not
remained constant through time, and that before about 1000 BC the deviations
are so great as to make radiocarbon dates significantly in error. This extract from
the paper "Radiocarbon dates from Antarctica" by D Harkness is one of
many that refutes the assumption that C-14 levels were constant.

"Constancy of C14 specific activity. Without doubt this has proved to be

the most controversial assumption. Direct comparison of the

331
 radiocarbon time-scale with precise dendrochronological sequences
indicates that the atmospheric burden of C14 has varied appreciably at
least during the last seven millenia." [39]

Because C-14 levels are known to have fluctuated for all kinds of reasons it
became necessary to develop calibration curves that have been validated against
tree ring dating in order to correct radiocarbon dating errors. However, even this
is only good for about 2500 BC as the oldest tree ring dating based upon living
trees only extend to about that time. Although, it is said that dead trees have been
used to extend this time by pattern matching tree rings against live ones, this too
is fraught with difficulty. The closeness of each ring in the bristlecone pines, with
multiple rings or missing rings hampering human interpretation, it is more than
likely that the pattern matching that have been done will be invalid anyway.

Pattern matching has to be done under a microscope. Why? If we travel to the

visitor centre at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest you will find a display that
tells how C-4 dates are calibrated using bristlecone pine tree rings. Incredibly,
the bristlecone core sample on display is not much thicker than the lead in a No.
2 pencil. It had been removed from the tree using what is known as an increment
borer. The tree rings in the sample are paper thin, and they all looked almost
identical. The differences in the rings are subtle, to say the least. Scientists have
had to count hundreds of these tiny rings and because the bands are so thin,
there is plenty of room for error, when pattern matching is made against another
tree sample.

Only the remains of living trees can be relied upon for determining
dendrochronological ages for use in radiocarbon dating validation and only a few
of these are over 4000 years old. None live today that existed before 3554 BC, the
date of the Flood. To make matters worse one cannot for example use tree ring
dating of artifacts in Italy with the chronology as laid down by the bristlecone
pine in California, because local catastrophes such as the eruption of Thera in
1600 BC and Vesuvius in 67 AD would have effected the growth patterns of the
trees growing in the region and which were cut down to make those artifacts.
Only, localised tree ring chronologies can be applied and few of these can go back
beyond 1000 BC.

The creation of radiocarbon in the atmosphere depends upon the amounts of

cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere from outer space. Here again we are
asked to accept an assumption. Radio carbon dating relies on the assumption
that cosmic rays have remained the same in the past as today, but this has proven
false too. Libby during his Nobel Prize speech on the 12th December 1960
expressed his belief that cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere had been
constant, even though he recognised that if it was not his theory would be invalid.

"These conclusions could be false if errors in the very different

quantities - the intensity of the cosmic rays and the mixing rate and

332
 depths of the oceans - should happen just to cancel one another. Being
so unrelated, we believe this to be very unlikely and conclude that the
agreement between the predicted and observed assays is encouraging
evidence that the cosmic rays have indeed remained constant
in intensity over many thousands of years and that the mixing
time, volume, and composition of the oceans have not changed
either." [40] [bold mine]

Libby was wrong again. Cosmic radiation has not been constant throughout
the ages. For example, tree ring dating measurements of annual rings of
Japanese cedar trees from 750 to 820 AD have shown that there was an increase
in C-14 levels by about 12% at that time. That is twenty times larger than the
change attributed to ordinary solar modulation and can be attributed to an
increase in cosmic-ray activity.

"A signature of cosmic-ray increase in AD 774-775 from tree rings in

Japan" [41] Such cosmic-ray changes have occurred often and even
more recently. NASA science news reported that "In 2009, cosmic ray
intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past
50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. [42]

Only three hundred years ago the effect of changes to cosmic rays has had a
devastating effect on the climate as noted by Henrik Svensmark of the Danish
National Space Centre.

"During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the
resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. Such
warming events have happened ten times in the last 12,000 years, and
recently in medieval times. In between the warm intervals there were
cold periods like the Little Ice Age, which was most severe 300 years
ago. We know that cosmic rays were intense during the Little Ice Age
because the production of radiocarbon atoms, C14, was at a peak. " [43]

There is copious scientific documentation to support the fact that cosmic ray
activity has changed, often radically, throughout human history thereby proving
that Libby's assumption "that the cosmic rays have indeed remained constant in
intensity over many thousands of years" is grossly wrong. This is one of the main
tenants for his radiocarbon methodology and it falls down badly. Cosmic ray
activity is far from constant and it is widely recognised that fluctuations have
occurred throughout human history.

Professor Vaclav Bucha of the Academy of Science of Czechoslovakia describes

some of the changes in C-14 production during the last thousand years.

333
 "New values for the changes of the earth's magnetic moment provide a
basis for a study of the dependence of C14 production on the earth's
magnetic field. The decrease of the magnetic moment is followed by an
increase of the cosmic-ray flux and therefore by an increase in the
production of C14. Higher values of the field have the opposite effect.
Hitherto, it had not been determined in what manner this influence
was manifested… we see a good correlation between the radiocarbon
deviations and the magnetic-moment changes. The increase of
magnetic moment around A.D. 900 is immediately accompanied by the
decrease of C14 deviations. The same is true of the changes around
A.D. 1200, as well as for those between A.D. 1 and 700 B.C." [44]

Fluctuations in cosmic ray activity notwithstanding, radiocarbon dating does

not take into consideration catastrophic events that have taken place on this
planet since man has lived on it. It is interesting to note that at the time of the
Quaternary extinction event and the Flood that brought it to a close in 3554 BC
we can see from the graph above that we find an enormous period of fluctuation
of magnetic activity that will clearly have had an effect on radiocarbon dates. [45]

Warren D. Allmon and Peter L. Nester writing in the Palaeontographica

Americana in 2008 confirmed that there was sigificant fluctuations in the
atmospheric radiocarbon content that indicated an abrubt climate change at the
Quaternary extinction event.

"The variability in atmospheric radiocarbon content in the Late Glacial

is very evident in the range of the radiocarbon ages of consecutive and
even contemporaneous sections from this chronology . Of particular
interest is one tree (sample G21) whose radiocarbon ages are either the
same or increasing over its lifespan, indicating that there could have
been a significant fluctuation in the atmospheric of radiocarbon

334
 content over that period. A significant reduction in ring size at the
position of its last radiocarbon date is a possible indicator of abrupt
climate change " [46]

Needless to say if radiocarbon dating was a precise science we would expect to

find consistent dates for given samples and that few if any anomalies would be
shown. On both counts dates are not constant and anomalies are to be found in
considerable numbers.

ANOMALIES GALORE

According to the radiocarbon method of dating there will be a time when the
amount of C-14 within a sample is so small that it cannot be measured. This
would mean that the sample is older than this dating method can measure. Libby
said that this was not a problem because at this point of 50,000 years most of
human history falls in this span. What Libby says sounds logical but as we shall
see it does not work out like that.

Theoretically if one was to send a bone sample of an Allosaurus dinosaur

supposed to be around 140,000,000 years to be radiocarbon dated then one
would expect to find that lab would not be able to return a result. So when in
June 1990 two such samples was sent by Hugh Miller to the University of Arizona
to be radiocarbon dated the results were surprising. Without telling the lab from
where the samples had originated, the results were 9,890 +/- 60 years BP and
16,120 +/- 220 years BP. How could this possibly be if the dinosaur bones are
said to be millions of years old. Clearly, something is wrong. Either dinosaurs are
not of any great age or there is something wrong with C-14 dating. As we shall see
it is the latter that is the problem.

335
 There are many anomalies associated with C-14 dating but the problem is that
they are not reported. Why? Writing in 1981 in the Anthropological Journal of
Canada in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error ," Robert Lee said:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep

and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better
understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly
challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself
in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-
as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation
here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then,
that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the
remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is,
though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate
and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is
uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected
dates" [47]

336
 The aforementioned article in the Anthropological Journal of Canada was
published over thirty years ago and since then great strides have been made in
the measuring of C-14 samples. However, this does not mean that the dating
system has become more reliable. All it means is that greater care is taken to
weed out possible discrepancies.

For example, a radiocarbon dating laboratory such as Beta Analytic with

facilities around the world says that it is important that radiocarbon scientists
and archaeologists agree on the sampling strategy before starting the excavation
so time, effort, and resources will not be wasted and meaningful result will be
produced after the carbon dating process. This is because to help to date samples
labs ask the suppliers of the samples as to what date range they are expecting to
find. Beta Analytic is quite open about this.

"Labs ask clients on the expected age of the radiocarbon dating

samples submitted to make sure that cross-contamination is avoided
during sample processing and that no sample of substantial age (more
than 10,000 years) must follow modern ones." [48]

In other words, the lab is admitting that they are anticipating a date provided
by the client to guide them in their testing regime and if wrong, then it is
rejected. What this means is that C-14 dating is not based upon independent
unbiased testing. That is what I call very bad science. Beta Analytic excuses their
duplicity by saying:

"Interpretation of radiocarbon dating results is not straightforward,

and there are times when archaeologists deem the carbon 14 dating
results "archaeologically unacceptable." In this case, the archaeologist
rejected the radiocarbon dating results upon evaluation of the
chronology of the excavation site. There are many possible reasons why
radiocarbon dating results are deemed "unacceptable." It can be that
there is an underlying depositional problem, or an unsuspected
contamination, or even a lab problem. " [49]

So far we have observed that radiocarbon dating is subjective, meaning that

the dating is based upon personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or
discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of
view. This is not how science should be implemented. The principle is this. State
the expected date and if not correct, reject it. If that was not bad enough it is rare
that human bones today are actually dated themselves so that any dates assigned
to, say Neanderthal remains, are really not worth the paper upon which they have
been written.

"People used to take bones, grind them up and date them, and you got all kinds
of dates because no one bothered to check if there was collagen or not," says Ofer

337
 Bar-Yosef, an archaeologist at Harvard University in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. And rather than damage valuable human bones or animal bones
marked with cuts from stone tools, scientists tended to date fragments of
unidentified animal bones found alongside human remains, assuming, not
always correctly, that they coincided with human occupation. [50]

Tom Higham is deputy Director of the 'Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit',

and he administers the Unit's archaeological dating programmes. He uses a giant
£2.5-million (US$4-million) particle accelerator, which is used to tot up the
number of radioactive carbon molecules in a sample, so he does know what he is
talking about.

This is most interesting you may ask but so what? Higham is quite outspoken
about past C-14 dates and does not care what toes he treads upon.

"Most of the thousands of carbon dates from archaeological

sites from the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic era are wrong,
say scientists, perhaps even as many as 90%. As a result,
archaeologists can agree on the history of this era only in the broadest
of brushstrokes... It just breaks your heart to see what people
have dated before. They've basically dated pieces of shit " [51]
[bold mine]

Higham comments made in 2012 are hardly reassuring for the radiocarbon
lobby. In essence he is saying that "scientists" admit that as much as ninety
percent of C-14 dates from the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic (dates to between
50,000 and 10,000 years ago) era are wrong. This the very period in which
Neanderthals are dated, exactly what I have been saying all along. If that is true,
then how can anybody accept the dates assigned to the Neanderthal race?

What all this boils down to is that if Neanderthal remains are dated by
radiocarbon dating it is not to find out their real age but to support a theory
already in place, namely evolution. In this theory Neanderthals have long been
dated by referring to the geological column, which itself is based upon assumed
dates defined a hundred years or more ago. Hence, if any C-14 dates do not
support the "accepted" scheme of things then the dates are simply discarded. The
following statement by T. Save-Sodebergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of
Egyptology and Institute of Physics, respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden)
in their publication, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology in Radiocarbon"
readily points this out.

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it
does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely 'out of date' we just drop it." [52]

338
 It should be emphasised that Higham is a stalwart supporter of C-14 dating
and there are many scientists like him who believe in the validity of the dating
technologies that they use. However, with so much time and money invested in
equipment and the opportunity to gain reputations of "honour", this should be of
no surprise. Hence, every effort has been made to improve on the radiocarbon
calibration curves thus far designed so that C-14 dating can be made more
reliable. Comments like this from "Quaternary Science Reviews" 24 (2005) are
common.

"Four decades of joint research by the dendrochronology and

radiocarbon communities have produced a radiocarbon calibration
data set of remarkable precision and accuracy extending from the
present to approximately 12,000 calendar years before present." [53]

That is nice and reassuring but behind the scenes of such optimism we find the
truth revealed:

"Despite its obvious appeal to archaeologists, most radiocarbon

facilities date bone only rarely. The principal reason may be the often
poor preservation of collagen in many contexts. Equally, however,
there has been a traditional scepticism concerning the reliability of
bone 14C determinations among archaeologists (Burky et al. 1998),
despite the obvious attraction of bone as a dating substrate that is
usually related to the archaeological event rather well" [54]

Comments such as those aforementioned offer either a "warm feeling" that

radiocarbon dating can be relied upon or a hopelessly confusing picture. As the
reader tries to gauge what is right and what is wrong, it does not matter what
dates radiocarbon dating offers. They are wrong, at least for dates exceeding
2500 BC, which do not have the benefits of tree-ring dating to validate them.

How can radiocarbon dating system be accepted as a valid dating system when
the very assumptions upon which it is based is universally recognised as being
wrong? It does not matter if you have the most fantastic equipment to measure
radiocarbon atoms such as an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) at your
disposal. If those assumptions are wrong then any dates that the system produces
will be wrong too. This is really a no brainer but this mathematical fact is one that
evolutionists just cannot get there heads around. Furthermore, using an AMS
presents its own problems.

AMS PROBLEMS

339
 When the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) equipment was developed, its
increased sensitivity was so much better that chronologists expected to be able to
measure samples approaching 100,000 years in age. However, problems quickly
emerged because in order to ensure that the equipment was calibrated correctly
it need to have a sample that contained zero radiocarbon. The trouble was that
every test that was made to calibrate their equipment with zero radiocarbon
present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic items such as
various carbonate rocks contained enough radiocarbon that could be dated at
between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained measurable
amounts of radiocarbon which should have been impossible.

With radiocarbon found in all samples regardless of their age being detected
by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer chronologists were faced with a major
dilemma. How could they explain this anomaly after having spent millions of
pounds on such equipment only to find that it did not validate radiocarbon
dating, but discredited this dating methodology instead. Perhaps the technology
was wrong they thought. In desperation a major effort to improve their
equipment and their techniques was carried out but it was all in vain. Carbon 14
was still detected in all samples.

For years articles were published, in professional peer-reviewed journals,

speculating about what caused this conundrum but no satisfactory explanation
materialised. There was no doubt about it. All the tests showed that carbon 14
existed in all samples. So chronologists began to refer to the anomaly as
"contamination" or "background," in order to cover up the problems that they
had. What this means of course is that any date assigned to a sample cannot be
right because regardless of how much carbon 14 the organic material had
absorbed before its death, it still would have carbon 14 within it regardless how
old it was. The words of Patrick Hurley writing in 1959 holds true today as it did
then.

"Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally

practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years,
because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is
difficult to get an accurate measurement above background
radiation." [55]

With AMS equipment showing the existence of radiocarbon in any sample that
they have tested, C-14 laboratories admitting that many dates that they have
obtained are discarded because they do not fit the expectations of those who sent
the samples in, and a leading proponent of radiocarbon dating describing dates
assigned to remains before the use of the AMS as "shit", it is hard to imagine how
anybody can consider radiocarbon dating as a viable method of dating.

There is another reason that we should doubt the usefulness of radiocarbon

dating. In order to calculate the radiocarbon age of a specimen, we need to

340
 compare the C-12/C-14 ratio now, with the C-12/C-14 ratio at the time of
death. However, we do not know the ratio at the time of death, which means we
have to make an assumption, a big one. Modern radiocarbon dating assumes that
the C-14/C-12 ratio in living organisms is the same now as it was in ancient
organisms before they died. You cannot get any reliable dates if this main
assumption is wrong - and it is wrong big time.

THE MAIN ASSUMPTION PROVEN WRONG

I am going to repeat myself here because it is important that the reader
appreciates that radiocarbon dating is based upon on assumptions and not
accurate science. Which means that radiocarbon has only any value if it is dating
material that goes back about 2500 years ago but not beyond. Any dates beyond
that is really of little value and meaningless. If your recall, Libby presumed that
the levels of C-14 in any particular geographical area has been constant and
regular throughout the geological record. What is the real facts about this?

"It is now known, however, that the proportion of radiocarbon to ordinary C12
has not remained constant through time, and that before about 1000 B.C. the
deviations are so great as to make radiocarbon dates significantly in error." says
Colin Renfrew who is Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research and professor of archaeology from 1981 to 2004, at Cambridge
University. He said in Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, the
definitive student reference that, "When Libby was first determining radiocarbon
dates, he found that before 1000 BC his dates were earlier than calendar dates.
He had assumed that amounts of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere had remained
constant through time. In fact, levels of Carbon-14 have varied in the atmosphere
through time". [56]

Libby also assumed that cosmic rays had remained constant in intensity over
many thousands of years. Why this is so important is because C-14 is produced in
the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays so if the intensity of those rays are
not constant then neither are C-14 levels. What is the real facts about this?

It is well established that the flux of incoming cosmic rays at the upper
atmosphere is dependent three factors - the solar wind, the earth's magnetic
field, and the energy of the cosmic rays themselves. The strength of the solar
wind is not constant, and hence it has been observed that cosmic ray flux is
correlated with solar activity. In addition, the Earth's magnetic field acts to
deflect cosmic rays from its surface, giving rise to the observation that the flux is
apparently dependent on latitude, longitude, and azimuth angle. The magnetic
field lines deflect the cosmic rays towards the poles, giving rise to the aurora. In
other words cosmic rays in any particular geographical area cannot have been
constant or the same either. Consequently, carbon-14 levels cannot be constant
either, yet radiocarbon dating is founded upon the "belief" that they are constant,
and have been for 60,000 years.

341
 When all is said and done, it is a fact that radiocarbon dating starts with the
assumption that radiocarbon levels when an organic life form died was the same
as it is now, but we now know that this assumption is grossly incorrect.
Consequently, regardless of how much one fudges the dates that comes from the
equation used, the dates will always be wrong. In addition given the short
carbon-14 half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than
250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no
detectable carbon-14. Yet with almost without exception, when tested by AMS
methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record (the
period from about 540 million years ago until the present) show detectable
amounts of carbon-14! That should not happen.

C-14C/C-12 ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be
clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of
geological age. That means that any organic material dated will always end up
with the range of 20,000 to 50,000 years no matter how old it really because
there is always some residue left over that can be detected by an AMS.

How did that residue get there? First, any instrument which is built to measure
radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to
radiocarbon in the sample from the background processes within the measuring
apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will
register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within
the counter.

Secondly, it is easy to unknowingly contaminate a sample which contains very

little radiocarbon from the surrounding area where it is being tested. A sample
that is 3,000 years old could appear to be 10,000 years old or more because of
such contamination. Radiocarbon since it is present in relatively high
concentrations in the air and in the tissues of all living things including any
individuals handling the sample. So it all boils down to whether or not
background contamination of the sample has occurred and if it has how severe
that will be. But since every sample will be effected by this regardless, any dates
will be wrong. So we have a double whammy, an erroneous constant used for
calculation that will give a wrong date and there will always be some
contamination of sample by background radiocarbon, which show up better
when the sample is closer to the maximum threshold of 50,000 years before
present.

Enough said! I am happy to concede that radiocarbon dating when supported

by tree-ring dating may be useful for dating organic materials up to about 1000
BC or even perhaps as far as 2500 BC but beyond that you might as well get a
dart board, throw a dart and choose the number that it embeds itself in.
Radiocarbon dating is just too unreliable and prone to many errors to be
considered a viable option for dating Neanderthal remains for example. That is
why so many dates are discarded at the labs, as Remi Van Haelst says in his
article, Natural deviations of the radiocarbon equilibrium in the atmosphere.
Finally, a scientific explanation for the mediaeval dating of the Shroud?

342
 published in December 2001.

"In spite of the use of standard samples and modern technology, like
AMS, the practical datable period is restricted to less than 2500 BC...
One reading the specialized paper "Radiocarbon", will find and
abundance of reports about erroneous radiocarbon dating. It should be
noted that the C-14 labs do not report, most of the time, the
elimination of "outliers" or aberrant dates". [57]

ABSOLUTE DATING PAR EXCELLANCE

I am going to tell you a story to illustrate the best dating system around. The
story began when archaeologists in England were called to a site where road
builders who had been preparing the area for a new motorway intersection had
reported the finding the remains of a man and with him was a leather package.
However, the leather of the package had fallen apart having suffered the ravages
of time beneath the earth, revealing what appeared to be a soiled book with the
pages mattered together into one solid mass. The bones of the man were badly
decayed and there was no way of identifying who he was. The cover of the book
was illegible but a few pages within showed text which although illegible showed
that it had been a printed work. That being the case, one could estimate that the
book had been printed sometime after 1450 AD because that was when the
printing press was first developed in Germany by Johann Gutenberg.

The book was sent away for radiocarbon dating and the results were that it had
been dated about 1680 AD +- 100 years. Unfortunately, tree ring dating could not
be used for validation because wood would be needed to do that, such as a
wooden box in which the book might have been stored, but there was not one.
For tree ring dating, wood is required in order to carry out pattern matching of
rings within the wood against a calibration table of tree ring dates.

Weeks later the archaeologists had been able to dry out the book and when
they gained access to the front page it had a picture of William Tindall on it.
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tynsdale, Tindall, Tindill, Tyndall; c. 1494-
1536 AD) was an English scholar who became a leading figure in Protestant
reform in the years leading up to his execution. He is well known for his
translation of the Bible into English. Further analysis proved that the book was in
fact a copy of the first edition of the Tindall bible published in 1531 AD. Since the
man had been buried with the book this meant that he died in that year too.

343
 While radiocarbon dating had given a rough guide as to the book's age it had
not been specific enough. Although described as absolute dating radiocarbon
dating cannot be deemed as such. Without tree ring dating to fine tune its
calculation radiocarbon dating is no better than a person coming to the
conclusion that because the book had been printed, that it had to be younger than
1450 AD because it was after that date when the printing press had been
invented. However, as a result of what was written in the book an absolute date
had been provided that was precise and accurate.

From this illustration it is clear that the best form of absolute dating is that
provided by the written word. In fact just as there is a geological column that
evolutionists can use, although as we have seen it is based upon assumptions and
doubtful interpretations, historians have something similar too, and this is much
more precise. The historian has a whole range of chronologies of man that he can
refer to. And just like index fossils used in the geological counter part, there are
all kinds of index objects that can be used to identify a given era such as coins,
pottery or even the genealogy of king and queens and their regnal years of rule.

The written word is clearly absolute dating par excellence, and yet
evolutionists are quite happy to ignore historical documents that conflict with
their interpretation of the origins of man. One of the chronologies of man that is
avoided like the plague by them is that of Bible chronology even though most if
not all is founded upon solid evidence. Let me show you.

BIBLE CHRONOLOGY ACCURACY PROVEN

It is extraordinary to find that even though the Bible has an extensive
chronology that goes back to the Flood and beyond and which is backed up by
"index" objects of all kinds it is generally ignored because intensive evolutionist
propaganda for decades has convinced people that the Biblical record cannot be

344
 trusted. However, time and time again archaeological evidence continues to be
uncovered that verifies Bible chronology to a remarkable degree. Take for
example the recent discovery of a tiny cuneiform tablet that is described by "The
Telegraph" 11 July 2007, TINY TABLET PROVIDES PROOF FOR THE
OLD TESTAMENT.

This tiny tablet was discovered by professor Michael Jursa, a visiting professor
from Vienna, to the British Museum who was searching for Babylonian financial
accounts among the many tablets stored at the museum. Jursa suddenly came
across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described in a 2,500
years old tablet, who was described as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II,
king of Babylon. Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in
chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name
- Nebo-Sarsekim.

Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief

officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the
Babylonians overran the city. The small tablet, the size of "a packet of 10
cigarettes" according to Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, is a bill of receipt
acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin's payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in
Babylon. The tablet is dated to the tenth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II,
595 BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem. [58]

Here we see an example of events described it the Bible having proven to have
been correct, in this case written evidence of the existence of Nebo-Sarsekim,
Nebuchadnezzar's chief officer.

Although Bible chronology has proven accurate time and time again as shown
by the aforementioned example when one approaches the Exodus dated about

345
 1585 BC there are some Bible scholars who say that there was never any
exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. They say that the story is best
seen as theology that illustrates how the God of Israel acted to save and
strengthen his chosen people, and not as history. [59]

Disbelief in the Biblical account of the Exodus is not new. What is new
according to the article under the heading Doubting the Story of the Exodus
as published in the Los Angeles Times 13th April, 2001, is that doubt has been
turned into historical fact. Readers are told that there is a consensus of biblical
historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen when nothing
could be further from the truth. No such consensus actually exists and this is yet
another example of pro-evolutionist propaganda endeavouring to bring their
greatest enemy, the Bible and what it says in disrepute. The fact of the matter is
that many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude
from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them is the editor of
Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha'aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

The biggest problem for accepting the Exodus account is that historians have
been looking for evidence almost 200 years later (1440 BC) than when it
happened (1602 BC). Little wonder therefore that they have not been able to find
any evidence. For reasons best known to themselves they have ignored ancient
testimonies such as that of the "Ipuwer Papyrus" and the Jewish historian
Artapanus whose works date from the third century BC. These writings as well as
others describe how Egypt was invaded by the Amalakites (Hyksos) and was
conquered without a single battle. How was this possible?

Manetho the Egyptian historian (3rd century BC) describes the Hyksos
invasion in his famous Aegyptiaca - History of Egypt this way:

"Tutimaeus. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God
smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of
obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By
main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then
burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the
gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some
and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they
appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had
his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and
leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all,
he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians, as
they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom".

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his book Against Apion
quotes Manetho and says:

346
 "Under a king of ours named Timaus (Tutimaeus) God became angry
with us, I know not how, and there came, after a surprising manner,
men of obscure birth from the east, and had the temerity to invade our
country, and easily conquered it by force, as we did not do battle
against them. After they had subdued our rulers, they burnt down our
cities, and destroyed the temples of the gods, and treated the
inhabitants most cruelly; killing some and enslaving their wives and
their children.

Then they made one of their own king. His name was Salatis; he lived
at Memphis, and both the upper and lower regions had to pay tribute
to him. He installed garrisons in places that were the most suited for
them. His main aim was to make the eastern parts safe, expecting the
Assyrians, at the height of their power, to covet his kingdom, and
invade it."

Where was all the might of the Egyptian armies that had conquered Nubia a
few years before? 'Without a single battle' implies that there was no Egyptian
army to fight against the Hycsos. Why not? The Exodus account tells us that
Pharaoh and his army had been destroyed during the crossing of the Sea of
Reeds. Hence, there was nobody available to resist the invaders. This is a
coincidence that has not gone unnoticed. Barry Setterfield writing his article,
"Ancient Chronology in Scripture" says:

"Pause right there just for a moment. These Hyksos conquered Egypt
'easily, without a single battle.' How remarkable! Where was all the
might of the Egyptian armies that had conquered Nubia a few years
before. 'Without a single battle' implies that there was no Egyptian
Army to fight against them. Why not? Unless Pharaoh's armies had just
been destroyed in the Red Sea and there were no military personnel
left. That can be the only logical conclusion one can come to. Manetho's
comment is therefore an important piece of contributory
evidence." [60]

Furthermore, the events marked by the Exodus tie in very closely to the
volcanic eruption of Thera, and dare I say it, radiocarbon dating analysis of an
olive tree buried beneath a lava flow from the volcano indicates that the eruption
took place about 1600 B.C. while the Exodus took place according to my revised
Bible Chronology in 1602 B.C described in my book The Bible as History
Confirmed.

It is generally accepted that Thera erupted between 1630 and 1550 B.C., or the
Late Bronze Age, a time when many human cultures made tools and weapons of
bronze. [61] Dated by radiocarbon dating the date for the Exodus cannot be more
precise but the Bible chronology, which is more accurate, puts the event between

347
 those two radiocarbon dates.

While the story in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the
best-known account of the Exodus, there are over a 150 references throughout
the Bible. It is clear that the Exodus played a significant role in the history of
Israel, so to dismiss it as some figment of the imagination and as an illustration is
really a slap in the face to our ancestors integrity. While it is true that we may not
possess, at least at present, conclusive proof that the Israelites left Egypt en
masse as the Bible describes, what we do have are several indications of the
Exodus' historical significance and ample evidence that the biblical account is
entirely plausible.

It is a simple matter to claim that lack of clear, decisive external confirmation

of the biblical account is itself a disproof, but no rational person believes that
what has not been proven is false. What can be said with certainly is that there is
no consensus that the Exodus did not happen, despite claims to the contrary and
that one cannot ignore the testimony of the written records of a people who
religiously recorded each and every event of their history.

Then we come to the Flood and here, because of evolutionist propaganda that
says this event never occurred, it is generally discredited. However, the Flood
(3554 BC) I maintain took place at the end of the Quaternary extinction event
geologists (8000 BC) to bring that saga of mass destruction to a close. What
follows after that fits in well with what we know about the birth of the oldest
civilisation - Sumeria that apparently appeared out of nowhere.

William Broad writing for the New York Times in 2009 under the heading, In
the Mediterranean, Killer Tsunamis From an Ancient Eruption
describes the Sumerians as follows.

348
 "The Sumerians were the most extraordinary people who ever lived on
the face of the earth. They seemed to come from out of nowhere,
and they single-handedly invented civilisation when most of the rest of
the world was still living in the Stone Age. What's more, they did it
thousands of years before anyone else." [62] [bold mine]

According to Genesis after the Flood the survivors (Noah and his family)
descended and took up residence in the land of Shinar. Also, according to
Josephus, they were not the only survivors.

"Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one
hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the
mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and
persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower
grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to
come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their
examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called
Shinar." [63] [bold mine]

If the survivors of the Flood had settled in Shinar as the Bible says then we
would expect to see evidence of the first settlements there. Where was Shinar?
Historians and archaeologists alike agree that the land of Shinar was Sumer. It
literally translates to "country of two rivers" which can only mean the Tigris and
Euphrates when taking into account the cities mentioned above. Erech/Uruk,
Akkad/Agade, and Babylon existed nowhere else but in the land of Shinar.
Further evidence of its location, outside of Genesis 10:10-11 comes to us from the
Book of Daniel.

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And
the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the
vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure-
house of his god." (Daniel 1:1-2) Nebuchadnezzar was the king who
destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC which also resulted in the Jewish Exile
and he came from the land of Shinar, which was in his day called
Chaldea.

349
 The Flood survivors we are told from the Bible settled in Sumer (Sumeria) and
hence it is no coincidence that it is generally recognised that the oldest
civilisation to leave written records developed there.

The Flood took place in 3554 BC by my reckoning and we are told that by 3000
BC, five hundred years later, a flourishing agricultural and urban civilisation had
come into being in Sumeria. The Sumerians were adept at building canals and in
irrigation and apparently arrived on the scene as if from nowhere. "Sumeria is
known as the "sudden civilisation" by scholars because this remarkable culture
seemingly appeared out of nowhere." [64]

That the civilisation of Sumeria appeared suddenly is exactly what we would

expect after a catastrophe like the Flood had occurred.

Excavated objects such as pottery, jewellery and weapons show that the
Sumerians were also skilled in the use of metals like copper, gold and silver and
had developed artistry and technological knowledge. This again is what should
have been expected because we are told in the Book of Enoch that before the
Flood one of the Watchers named "Azazel taught men to make swords, and
knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the
earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of
antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and
all colouring tinctures." [1 Enoch 8:1]

350
 Although we learn of the Flood in Genesis we would expect that the survivors
of the disaster that first settled in Sumer and who had lived through the
extinction event, would have recorded details of it too. This they certainly did.
The earliest record of the Sumerian flood is found on a single fragmentary tablet
excavated in Nippur, Iraq and sometimes called the Eridu Genesis. It is written in
the Sumerian language and according to J. R Davila in the Journal of Near
Eastern Studies (1995) it is datable by its script to 2150 BC although where it is
displayed at the Pennsylvania Museum it is described as being dated around 1699
BC.

The tablet deals with the creation of humans, prediluvian cities and their
rulers, and the flood. The main character is Zi-ud-sura (Ziusudra = Noah?) and
the destroyer god is Enlil. The similarities between the Genesis account and what
is written on the tablet is obvious.

The Eridu Genesis tablet of the Flood is by no means an isolated record

because there are several others. For example there is the Sumerian King List, an
ancient manuscript originally recorded in the Sumerian language, listing kings of
Sumer and neighbouring dynasties, their supposed reign lengths, and the
locations of "official" kingship.

The original King List was probably composed during the reign of Utu-hegal of
Uruk (2119-2112 BC) and the pre-flood list of kings, added after the reign of Sin-
magir (1827-1817 BC) of the Isin dynasty. The list refers to the Flood this way:
"Then the flood swept over" and "After the flood had swept over, and the
kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish." [65]

It is interesting to note that one of Noah's sons that had survived the Flood was
Ham, and he had a son called Cush. The Hebrew word for Cush can be
transliterated as Kish and after the Flood and according to the Sumerian King

351
 List kingship began at Kish. "Cush and Kish are also spelled the same in
Sumerian, Semitic and Egyptian..." [67] This is a remarkable confirmation of the
biblical account from external biblical sources.

I am sure the reader will be aware of the other cuneiform tablets that describe
the Flood, the most famous being the Epic of Gilgamesh, a legendary ruler of
Uruk, and his search for immortality who is also mentioned in the Sumerian King
List. The Assyrian King Ashurbanipal (reigned 669-631 BC) collected a library of
thousands of cuneiform tablets in his palace at Nineveh and it was amongst these
that the tablet was discovered.

The epic of Gilgamesh is a huge work, the longest piece of literature in

Akkadian (the language of Babylonia and Assyria) that has been found. It was
known across the ancient Near East, with versions also found at Hattusas (capital
of the Hittites), Emar in Syria and Megiddo in the Levant. The eleventh tablet of
the Epic, describes the meeting of Gilgamesh with Utnapishtim. Like Noah in the
Hebrew Bible, Utnapishtim had been forewarned of a plan by the gods to send a
great flood. He builds a boat and loads it with all his precious possessions, his
kith and kin, domesticated and wild animals and skilled craftsmen of every kind.

It is time to bring this chapter to closure. The conclusion is that the dating
methods used by evolutionists to support their theory relies primarily on their
hypothetical geologic column that has remained much the same for one hundred
and fifty years.

Claims of "absolute dating" to support what the geologic column says, is based
upon radiocarbon dating but while this method of dating does have a place in
dating organic materials (as long as it is validated by tree-ring dating) it is limited
to a period not exceeding 2500 BC. Here I am being generous as I am not

352
 convinced that dates beyond 1000 BC dated by this methodology is reliable
enough. This is because radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed by virtue of the
fact it is based upon assumptions and not sound scientific methods. That said I
have presented a case for believing that dating based upon written records is by
far the better way for absolute dating when it comes to the history of mankind.

Although evolutionists do not accept that there had been a flood of such
proportions that destroyed most of mankind leaving only a few survivors, the
evidence from written sources tells a different story. The Nephilim
(Neanderthals) existed before the Flood of that there is no doubt. The question
for the reader to decide is whether or not one believes in the evolution view of
Neanderthals living for thousands of years or the biblical account (and other
written records) that say that they were the children of the Watchers who had
debased themselves with women and through their sexual union produced
human hybrids called the Nephilim?

I believe that what I have presented here supports the biblical case far better
than the fantasies that evolutionists have offered for over one-hundred and fifty
years. The theory of evolution with respects to the origins of man leaves much to
be desired, and the idea that there was a common ancestor has been found
wanting in the fossil record. Likewise, the reader should also be aware that recent
advances in the fields of biology and genetics also disprove that there was a
common ancestor between man and apelike hominids. This is extensively
detailed in my book EVOLUTION'S Coup de Grâce, mentioned above.

What now? We know that the Nephilim/Neanderthals abruptly disappeared

from the world scene is a mystery that continues to dumbfound evolutionists
scientists to this day. "Roughly 30,000 years ago, the Neanderthals disappeared,
although pockets might have survived until as recently as 24,000 years ago. Since
they vanished just as modern humans were emerging there, scientists have long
speculated that we might have driven their extinction." [68]

While evolutionists scratch their heads in despair trying to fathom the reason
for the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals, for readers of the Bible and the
Book of Enoch, it is not a mystery. What I am about to do in the final chapter of
this book is to reconstruct the events that led to the extinction of the Nephilim
(Neanderthals) and the Watchers (Cro-Magnons) thereby enabling manking to
gain ascendancy. To do this I shall turn to the records that were penned by our
ancestors, which were passed down from generation to generation to us today. It
is these that provide an accurate account about those times 5700 years ago.

353
 Chapter 13
NEANDERTHALS DISAPPEARANCE SOLVED
"Scientists have long known that the popular image of the Neanderthal as a
primitive, hairy, heavily browed, club-wielding brute is not supported by the
fossil evidence. But to date, no such consensus has existed on the riddle of
Neanderthals' disappearance".
(Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History)

We have reached the final chapter of what has been an extraordinary journey
of discovery. From what I have presented in this book it is clear that the origins of
man as seen through the eyes of evolution can best be described as a pseudo-
science and nothing more. It is a ghastly tale of imagination developed over a
century or more under the guise of science, but when push comes to shove, the
evolution of man turned out to be a theory built upon very flimsy evidence
indeed. In fact it is little better than the story of Santa Claus except it is painful to
watch so many intelligent and learned men having placed their reputations on
the line, in anticipation of receiving substantial funding, fame and fortune. To
admit they have been wrong would be tantamount to academic suicide and so the
show has to goes on regardless of the consequences.

To make matters worse, and I have only told you half of it, some evidence has
purposely been falsified while other evidence have been grossly misleading.
Misinterpretations have been commonplace, glossed over as evidence of the
science method working. Furthermore, it would seem that after one-hundred and
fifty years all that anthropologists have succeeded in doing is to learn about
extinct apes in places of the world where apes are or have been numerous. What
a surprise!

354
 Evolutionists then have the audacity to suggest that man has somehow
descended from these extinct apes even though there is no shred of evidence to
support such a hypothesis, unless you accept personal interpretation as evidence.
Currently, if you remove Homo habilis and Homo heidelbergensis from the
equation for reasons I have outlined in this work, there are no recognised direct
ancestors of man to be found. So much for evolution which is founded upon the
belief that life has evolved from lower forms to more complex organisms. Not so
with regards the origins of man.

The evolution of man that has been taught is a sham and does not add up to
serious scrutiny as I have shown in this book. In this regard I have not used any
creationist material and have only used information that have been presented by
evolutionists themselves just as their discoveries were made and at the time when
they were reported. I believe I have been fair in allowing scientists who support
the evolution model to present their case through their propaganda machine in
publications and through announcements in science journals and populist media
outlets such as public displays at museums, on-line websites, television and the
newspaper articles. It is not my fault if in doing so the evidence presented and
discussed herein piece by piece has been found to be a jumbled mess of claim and
counter claim, falsehoods, deceptions and misapplied interpretations.

Charles Darwin and many evolutionists since have presented the case for
evolution as a slow and gradual process, with a species evolving and
accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if
evolution was gradual then there should be in the fossil record for small
incremental changes within a species, but scientists today have been unable to
find any of these intermediate forms although some have claimed that they have
in some cases. However, those that have been identified could just as easily be
variations within a species and not transitional forms. The fossil record shows
that life suddenly appeared and then become extinct to be replaced by newer
ones. This is what Creationists and Catastrophists have argued ever since the
evolution debate began.

The University of California Museum of Palaeontology says on their website

that, "Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification)
took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes
and mechanisms are vigorously debated." This is an incredible admission. What
is admitted is that for a hundred and fifty years or more since the evolution
model was first proposed the processes of evolution have been a cause of
considerable debate in which no consensus has emerged. In fact, for which the
public is oblivious to, things have got so bad that some evolutionists have
removed themselves from the mainstream and have now proposed a non-Darwin
approach to evolution. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium.

With no evidence of transitional links in the fossil record, some evolutionists

have had to resort to a different and controversial model of the evolution. In
1972, evolutionist scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed
another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. They suggested

355
 that the "gaps" were in fact real and that they represented long periods of
stasis (stability) in the structure of animals and plants.

The two scientists called their new theory for evolution " Punctuated
Equilibrium". Put another way, what Gould and Eldredge were saying was that
the morphology of species has remained stable and had changed very little for
millions of years. Then this leisurely pace of stasis was suddenly "punctuated" by
a rapid burst of evolutionary change that resulted in the rise of new species.

Let us cut to the chase and be honest about this. Desperate to find a solution
for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, these scientists have fudged
an explanation to account for the lack of transitional forms, while at the same
time keeping true to their belief in evolution even if their offering does not
support the mainstream and popular view of that theory.

It is just a question whether we accept this new punctuated equilibrium

evolution model of stability to rapid change, or the creation model whereas a
result of catastrophic events rocking this planet from time to time, new creatures
were either created or existing ones adapted to the new circumstances through
natural selection. By this I mean that animals and flora that had once been
relegated to the fringes of life suddenly found themselves survivors of
catastrophic events. Consequently, they flourished and replaced those destroyed
in the extinction event.

I have to say in all honesty I am not impressed by the supposed evidence for
the evolution of man. If that evidence had been solid, with no examples of
fraudulent practices and with all anthropologists singing from the same song
sheet because the evidence offered was so clear cut and beyond debate then who
knows I might have become an evolutionist. But all I have seen are lies, false
propaganda, the fudging of material to support preconceived ideologies,
bickering, sensational announcements that have proven false years later, cover-
ups, conspiracies and - need I go on? This is not how real science works.

Things got no better when we took a look at the dating techniques that have
been applied to fossil bones by evolutionists. The main dating method used is
that of the Geologic Column with particular interest, as far as this book is
concerned, the so called Holocene period where Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and
modern humans are said to have coexisted for thousands of years. Such dating
we learned was actually based purely on speculative reasoning following a model
that was established a hundred years or more ago when no absolute dating
methods existed at that time.

Then along came radiocarbon dating heralded as the answer to precision and
absolute dating, except that it too was found to be hopelessly flawed. Propped up
by tree ring dating, radiocarbon dating has to be adjusted by calibration curves,
as they are called, but since dementology can only be reliably limited to about
2500 BC despite claims to contrary, radiocarbon dating is very limited in what it
can do.

356
 Furthermore, radiocarbon dating was found to be based upon assumptions
that have since been proven erroneous and this dating method does not take into
any consideration the consequences for the effects of catastrophic events in
earth's history. For example the effects of the Quaternary extinction event (and
Flood) in 3554 BC on the climate would without doubt have had devastating
effects on any carbon-14 measurements made. As would more localised
catastrophes such as volcanic eruptions like that of Thera around 1600 BC.

Lastly, we took a brief look at what the Bible has to offer. What did we find?
We discovered that the written word and the records of our ancestors was a far
better tool for dating than anything that evolutionists had to offer. Admittedly, I
did not go into any great depth into this simply because to do so would involve
writing a book the subject, which is beyond the remit of the present work. This I
have now undertaken and a book by the title of The Bible as History Confirmed,
is earmarked to be published towards the end of 2014.

Although what was looked at with respects to the Bible, there was enough
material presented to demonstrate that having at our disposal the records of our
ancestors who not only lived through the Quaternary extinction event (and
Flood) and survived to tell the tale, was invaluable. It would be crazy to ignore
such records. In fact, I would rather put my trust in such writings than to rely on
the statements by evolutionists who refer to a hypothetical geological framework
propped up by dubious dating methods and which are based upon proven
wrongful assumptions. I hope the reader will agree with that assessment having
read about the alternative, evolution and its dating methods.

NEANDERTHALS REAPPRAISED
As for Neanderthals, once regarded as direct ancestors of man, they are now
considered anything but and are really just like us in every way. We have looked
at Neanderthals from an evolutionary point of view and learned about the
greatest deception of them all. Rather than being the low intelligent, brutish,
knuckle-walking apemen that had been taught for decades in the popular media
thanks to evolutionist propaganda, we learn that Neanderthals were incredibly
sophisticated, very strong and powerful beings. In fact just like the Nephilim
described in the Bible and the Book of Enoch.

The sophistication of the Neanderthals is now universally recognised, although

it has taken a long time to correct the damage caused by the deception that was
perpetrated by Boule. John Hawks, paleoanthropologists at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison sums up the new and present understanding of who
Neanderthals were. He is quoted as saying in National Geographic News, 12th
October, 2012, "Neanderthals have gone from being different from us to being
like us," Hawks noted. "They're looking like [Homo sapiens] hunter-gatherers
look. But while modern humans continued to develop cultural complexity and
spread across the globe, the Neanderthals vanished. Why remains a mystery."

357
 The mystery of the Neanderthal's sudden disappearance continues to haunt
scientists. Yet if we were to look beyond the evolutionary model, the answer is
staring us in the face. We are told in black and white what happened to them. It is
my contention that Neanderthals were not a product of evolution. This means
that we need to look at the alternative that I have presented in all seriousness? In
the preceding chapters I identified the remains attributed to Neanderthals as
being those of the Nephilim. Similarly, the bones of Cro-Magnon Man, a tall race
of "anatomically modern humans" as they are now classified, I identified as being
those of the Watchers. The glove fitted perfectly!

What I am about to do now is to reconstruct the events that took place that
resulted in the extinction of the Nephilim (Neanderthals) and the demise of the
Watchers (Cro-Magnons) which led to the ascendancy of modern man. I shall be
using the Bible, the Book of Enoch and other ancient writings to unveil the story
behind the mystery. Let us begin...

BEFORE THE FLOOD

According to the Biblical account Adam and Eve were expelled and exiled from
the Garden of Eden and from here they began to populate the earth. Contrary to
popular belief, Eden is not a mythical place and Egyptologist David Rohl claims
to have found the site where it was located.

In 1998 Peter Martin of the Sunday Times joined David Rohl in his search for
the fabled garden of Eden and he reported on what was discovered. Martin's
conclusion was that the accumulated evidence of Rohl's thesis overall was that
the decoding and plotting of the four named rivers of Eden; the discovery of the
unnamed river that was said to water the garden; the identification of the lands
of Havilah and Cush; and the fair certainty that the place of Cain's exile, the land
of Nod, is there still, showed that Rohl had been right and that he had indeed

358
 found the location of the Garden of Eden. [1] More about this in my book
Creation Revisited.

Outside the safe sanctuary of Eden the descendants of Adam and Eve spread
far and wide across Europe and the Middle East and for over a thousand years
(5586-4580 BC) [2], from the birth of Shem and that of Jared, mankind
flourished. Although Genesis specifically concentrates on naming certain
individuals, it also says that, such and such a person begot sons and daughters,
and these are not named. (Genesis 5:4; 5:10; 5:12; 5:16; etc) I mention this in
case the reader is wondering where all the people came from.

As man explored his world he lived on wild fruits and vegetables, but he also
learned to till the soil and work the land by the sweat of his brow. "By the sweat
of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it
you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19 NIV).

As time went on mankind learned how to use stone tools, make fire, to hunt
and to fish and where the climate was cold such as in northern latitudes, they
used the skins of the animals that they had killed to make clothing. This was the
time when great beasts roamed the northern lands such as mammoths, bison and
deer of all kinds. To the south lay the vast expanses of North Africa and here the
climate was so warm that clothing requirements were generally unnecessary.

Scientists today acknowledge that between five thousand and eight thousand
years ago there was no desert in the Sahara region. Hence we read in numerous
journals that, "As recently as 5,000 years ago, the Sahara-today a vast desert in
northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles - was a verdant
landscape, with sprawling vegetation and numerous lakes. Ancient cave paintings
in the region depict hippos in watering holes, and roving herds of elephants and
giraffes - a vibrant contrast with today's barren, inhospitable terrain." [3]

359
 Science journalist Jennifer Chu, writing for PhysOrg, a leading web-based
science, research and technology magazine, reported the findings of scientists
about the abrupt change of climate shift in the Sahara 5000 years ago.

"The Sahara's "green" era lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, but
came to an abrupt ending when the region dried back into a desert in
the span of one to two centuries. The researchers say this abrupt
change occurred simultaneously across North Africa." [4]

It is the author's belief that the dramatic change in climate five thousand years
ago that transformed a green Sahara into a desert is further evidence of the last
stages of the Quaternary extinction that resulted in the Flood. The climatic
changes in the Sahara coincided with the changes in northern regions of the
earth, such as Siberia, where colder climatic conditions suddenly took place.

The vast lands of what is now the Sahara stretched as far as the eye could see
and were full of lakes teaming with fish and everywhere lush vegetation grew.
Rock paintings discovered in the Sahara and said to have been created at this
time reveal a land teeming with buffalo, elephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus,
animals that no longer exist in the now desert area. People in the rock paintings
are also shown who are either hunting or seen in the midst of a pastoral setting
caring for domesticated animals such as cattle. Most people are shown naked. In
such lush and warm surroundings there was no reason to wear clothing.

As men flourished upon the earth and busied themselves about their daily
concerns, serene in their assurance of their abilities they were being watched
keenly and with envious eyes by intelligences greater than theirs. Long before
man had come into being spiritual entities who normally resided in the heavens
had been mandated to take on physical form and participate in the creation
processes of the planet. In this capacity the world had become their playground
enabling them to experience the pleasures of the physical five senses, with the
exception of the greatest pleasure of all - sexual gratification.

These intelligences are known to man by many names. In the Hebrew tongue
they are called Malakim [5], in the Sumerian language they are known as Igigu,
[6] while today they are called angels in the English vernacular. While these
angels observed the procreation activities of animals, they were far removed from
thoughts of a sexual nature, for as in heaven so on earth they were sexless and
women had as yet not been created to tempt them. Incidentally, there is no
evidence that angels had wings or were female in gender so pictures on the
internet, books and in famous paintings that often showing naked female angels,
have no basis in fact.

With man now living upon the earth the angels had been recalled to their
heavenly abode and some of them gazed upon their human cousins with envious
eyes. They witnessed the copulation of man and women and heard the cries of

360
 pleasure that emanated from such acts of physical ecstasy. Some of the
Malakim desired to enjoy such pleasures that they themselves had never
experienced, and for which they had been commanded not to do. These Malakim
thought of nothing else and the desire to partake in sex with women kind grew
into a burning obsession. So some of the angels decided that should they return,
clothe themselves with flesh as the other Watchers had done and ignore the
"prime directive". This was not to interfere with humankind directly. They were
only to guide mankind them in paths of righteousness and knowledge.

ANGELS AND GODS

Although we have been focusing our attention on the Biblical account and that
of the Book of Enoch, the reader may be interested to know that other non-
biblical written records describe similar events as that described in Genesis. I
speak primarily of one that is called the Atrahasis Epic, which is recorded in
cuneiform on a clay tablet dating about 1700 BC.

In the cosmology of the Atrahasis Epic we read that heaven is ruled by the god
Anu, earth by Enlil, and the freshwater ocean by Enki. Enlil set the lesser gods
(Igigu - angels) to work farming the land and maintaining the irrigation canals
under the supervision of leaders known as the Anunnaki. [7] This was before man
had come into being. It is interesting to note that in the Book of Enoch, we also
learn about a group of leaders, chief angels called Archangels, and these are
seven in number too. Their names being Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel,
Raguel, Remiel and Saraqael.

The Atrahasis Epic records that some of the gods (angels?) were discontented
with their toil in maintaining the earth.

361
 "When the gods like men bore the work and suffered the toil, the toil of
the gods was great, the work was heavy, the distress was much. The
Seven great Anunnaki were making the Igigu suffer the work." [8]

Eventually we are told the Igigu was about to rebel, which would mean that
war would break out in the heavens. However, Enki, also known as the wise
counsellor to the gods, proposed that humans be created to assume the work, and
the gods agreed with this solution. Thus, the goddess Mami made humans by
shaping clay mixed with saliva and blood. A blood sacrifice had to be made and
so the blood of the under-god We, was slain for this purpose.

We now return to the biblical account and here we find a story very much like
the Atrahasis Epic. We are told that man was created with for the specific
purpose to farm the land and to maintain it.

"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to
work it and take care of it.". (Genesis 2:15 NIV)

Of course the scriptural narrative does not say that man was created to do the
work that the angels had refused to do as described in the Atrahasis Epic.
However, it is safe to assume that the angels had been involved in work on the
earth during the creation period because they have often been sent by God to
carry out certain duties on this planet. In fact, the word "angel" means "one who
is sent".

A number of the angels who had participated in the creation process and who

362
 had returned to their stations in the heavens looked down on their flesh and
blood cousins with contempt. Did not Satan cause man to be disobedient to God
by eating from the forbidden fruit, believing that they could become like them as
gods?

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall
be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis
3:5)

As a consequence, Adam and Eve was cast out of the Garden of Eden in
disgrace to fend for themselves. Some of the angels began to harbour thoughts
that they should not. The saw in man weakness and arrogance for wanting to be
like them. At this time the angels were unaware of God's plan for humankind,
that one day they would be crowned with glory, and would be rulers even over the
angels.

"What is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that
you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honour. You made them rulers over
the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet" (Psalm
8:4-6 NIV)

THE COMING OF THE WATCHERS

Although God had expelled Adam and Eve from the protected area that was
called the Garden of Eden, God did not abandon them because he knew how
vulnerable they and their descendants would be in the vast expanse of the world
in which they had been cast. So God would in good time send his angels to
instruct and guide mankind, but before this would be done there was another
matter that needed to be addressed. Right from the beginning of their creation
Adam had been infused with the spirit of God so that he was immortal just as the
angels were. (Genesis 2:7). So the Lord said: "My spirit shall not remain in man
forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty
years." (Genesis 6:3 KJV)

So it was that gradually in the years that followed the exile from Eden and
unsustained by the "Tree of Life" that had grown in the garden, man's physical
bodies began to die. As generations past the lifespan of the physical gradually
shortened, until eventually those born after the Flood did not live beyond the
maximum that which had been ordained, one hundred and twenty years. Man
had become mortal. (The longest undisputed lifespan today for man is that of
Jiroemon Kimura, who currently lives in Japan and who is aged 115 years, 359
days as of 13 April 2013). However, although man's their physical body now died,

363
 his spiritual body remained immortal for it had come from God himself.

When a thousand years had passed and during the days Jared (4850-3888 BC)
God dispatched angels who took on physical form resembling those to which they
had been sent to watch.

"And in the second week of the tenth jubilee Mahalalel took unto him
to wife Dinah, the daughter of Barakiel the daughter of his father's
brother, and she bare him a son in the third week in the sixth year, and
he called his name Jared, for in his days the angels of the Lord
descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they
should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment
and uprightness on the earth." [10]

Although the Watchers resembled man in all respects, including having

genitalia, they could easily be identified by virtue of being taller, more muscular
and knowledgeable than their human counterparts. They were veritable
supermen in comparison.

One of the angels, Semyaza (Semjaza, Samyaza, Semihazah) was his name, had
become consumed with lust for mortal women and he knew he was not alone
with such thoughts. Semyaza found that as many as two-hundred others shared
his desire to copulate with women but he knew, as they did, that this was
forbidden. Angels in heaven did not marry or have children. But such was their
desire that "it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those
days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the
children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another:
'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us
children'" (Enoch 1 6:1-3)

Semyaza was afraid of what they were planning to do and he did not want to
take all the blame should God punish them for their unnatural acts and rebellion.
So Semyaza said to his co-conspirators, "I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this
deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin." However, the other
angels were now biting at the bit and the thought of copulating with women and
to experience the ecstasy of such pleasure was too much to bear. Surely, God
would not punish them if they all stuck together. There was too many of them for
God to do that, they reasoned. So they answered Semyaza and said, "Let us all
swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this
plan but to do this thing. Then swore they all together and bound themselves by
mutual imprecations upon it." (1 Enoch 6:4-5)

So the angels swore an oath to share the blame that would be laid upon their
heads should God consider punishing them. Then, in the days of Jared they
descended from Mount Hermon, a mountain cluster in the Anti-Lebanon
mountain range. [11] Its summit straddles the border between Syria and Lebanon

364
 and, at 2,814 m above sea level, and it is the highest point in Syria. It does
appear to be a place of considerable importance because many people believe
that the Transfiguration of Jesus occurred somewhere on Mount Hermon.

Then the two hundred Watchers led by Semyaza proceeded to take for
themselves a wife and did what they had been forbidden to do.

From their unlawful union children were born unto the rebellious Watchers,
hybrids that were called the Nephilim, the remains of which evolutionists have
misidentified and called Neanderthals, apelike ancestors of man.

THE LAPEDO CHILD

It is evident that not all children born of the union between the Watchers and
human women were like the Neanderthals of which we have become familiar.
Some may have appeared to look more like their parents, but still having some
Neanderthal traits built into their physical characteristics. This is born out by a
rare discovery of a child in Portuagal with the cranium, mandible, dentition, and
postcrania presenting a mosaic of European early modern human and
Neanderthal features.

It was on a chilly afternoon in late November 1998, when archaeologists were

inspecting the Abrigo do Lagar Velho rock shelter in central Portugal's. Lapedo
Valley. The archaeologists João Maurício and Pedro Souto, archaeology field
assistants and members of a local archaeology group spotted loose sediment in a
rodent hole along the shelter's back wall. Knowing that burrowing animals often
brought deeper materials to the surface, Maurício reached in to see what might

365
 have been unearthed. When he withdrew his hand, he held in it something
extraordinary: bones of a human child. Subsequent excavation of the burial
revealed that the four-year old boy had been ceremonially interred. He was
covered with red ochre and laid on a bed of burnt vegetation, along with pierced
deer teeth and a marine shell - in the Gravettian style known from modern
humans of that time across Europe.

The boy's skeleton had a number of features that were predominantly Cro-
Magnon. These include a prominent chin and certain other details of the
mandible (lower jaw), small front teeth, characteristic proportions and muscle
markings on the thumb, the narrowness of the front of the pelvis, and several
aspects of the shoulder blade and forearm bones. Yet intriguingly, a number of
features also suggested Neanderthal affinities - specifically the front of the
mandible (which slopes backward despite the chin), details of the incisor teeth,
the pectoral muscle markings, the knee proportions and the short, strong lower-
leg bones. Thus, the "Lagar Velho" child appears to exhibit a complex mosaic of
Neanderthal and early modern human features. [13]

Erik Trinkaus a paleoanthropologist at Washington University and an

authority on Neanderthals and early modern humans, began to clean and
reassemble the skeleton of the Lapedo child and work towards a preliminary
anatomical description.

After returning to the United States, Trinkaus was able to compare the bones
with his extensive data base on Neanderthals and early modern humans. His
conclusion was that the child did present a mosaic of Neanderthal and modern
human features. [14]

"The unavoidable conclusion therefore on present evidence is that the

Lapedo child represents a hybrid of Neanderthals and anatomically
modern humans. It is a modern child with genetically inherited
Neanderthal traits - which means that the last Neanderthals of Iberia
(and doubtless other parts of Europe) contributed to the gene pool of
subsequent populations." [15]

366
 The Lapedo child appears to be the product of the union between Cro-
Magnons and human women because it is doubtful that Neanderthals would
have been satisfied to have mated within their own species. They were a law unto
themselves, corrupting the world of man with violence and vile practices as we
are about to learn.

THE CORRUPTING OF MANKIND

If the reader may recall the Watchers had originally been tasked to guide
mankind in the ways of righteousness however, the two hundred that had
descended the slopes of Mount Hebron had other ideas. Having left their
heavenly abode and knowing that they could never return, Semyaza and his
associates began to corrupt mankind while their children the Nephilim rampaged
throughout the land, killing and causing mayhem wherever they went. As for the
rebel Watchers they became arrogant and lorded over mankind, becoming gods
to them so that man was subjected to a life of toil and servitude.

We can see echoes of what the Watchers and their children did in the myths
and legends throughout the world, but especially those of the Greeks who having
received the stories from their distant past adapted and localised them,
integrating them within their own culture and belief system.

In the "Table of Nations" described in Genesis (chapters 10 and 11) we find

that the Greeks were descended from the Japheth family line. The Greeks
themselves say that their ancestor was a man named Japetos (Iapetos), and you
can see in that name the resemblance to Japheth of the biblical account. It is
interesting to note too that the grandson of Japetos was Deucalion, and it is he
who enters a great box with his wife and three children to escape a great flood
that destroyed many people, just as Noah, the father of Japheth, had done with
his family.

It is clear from what we have discussed here that the origins of the Flood in
Greek mythology had come from Sumer and the story had evidently been told to
Japheth (Japetos) who would become the father of the Greeks. In addition, we
have already seen the connection between the Greeks and the Genesis account in
what the historian Josephus said when speaking about the Nephilim. Their deeds
"resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants". Josephus, a Jew,
knew of the Greek connection.

There are other indications of the link between the Greek myths and Genesis.
For example, Semyaza who is described in the Book of Enoch as the leader of the
rebellious Watchers matches Zeus of the Greek gods, while Mount Herman [16]
the highest and sacred mountain in Syria becomes to the Greeks sacred Mount
Olympus, their highest peak in Greece.

We find another connection when we learn of a hierarchical government

367
 having been formed by the Watchers with Semyaza and Zeus as supreme
leaders with a number of subordinates beneath them who controlled others of
their kind. Semyaza had beneath him "chiefs of tens". These were "Araklba,
Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, Asael, Armaros,
Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, and Sariel". (1 Enoch
6:7) [17] Zeus it is said ruled over eleven gods called the Olympians all of whom
appear to be related to him. The Twelve Olympians of the Greek pantheon
including Zeus were Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Hestia, Apollo, Artemis,
Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, and Hermes.

Walter Burkett in his book Greek Religion says that the concept of the "Twelve
Gods" was older than any extant Greek or Roman sources, and is likely to have
been of Anatolian origin. [18] Anatolia known by its earlier name of Asia Minor is
considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey. It's eastern and southeastern
borders are widely accepted to be alongside the neighbouring countries, of
Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq and lastly Syria where we find Mount Hermon.

There was a Watcher, one of the leaders of the two hundred, who did more to
corrupt mankind than any other. His name was Azazell and the meaning of his
name is "who God strengthens" [19] This suggests that at one time he had a
special relationship with God but evidently he joined the rebellious angels for
reasons we are not told. Of him it is written that, "The whole earth has been
corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin".
(1 Enoch 10:8) How did Azazell corrupt mankind? According to the book of
Enoch he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and
coats of mail, and women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dying
the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people
the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners. [20] As a result of his
actions there was "much blood being shed upon the earth and all lawlessness
being wrought upon the earth ... And as men perished, they cried, and their cry

368
went up to heaven..." [21]

Mankind fought with each other on a colossal scale incited by the rebellious
Watchers who had become their gods. At the same time the Nephilim rampaged
throughout the lands killing anyone who stood in their way, and they became
known as the mighty men of old, feared by all. It is written that the Nephilim ever
hungry, turned against man and devoured them and they even devoured each
other, when food could not be found. [22]

Neanderthal (Nephilim) cannibalism has been confirmed in a number of

recent studies. According to Antonio Rosas of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales in Madrid, "there is evidence of cannibalism in Neanderthal remains
from other European sites.... I would say this practice… was general among
Neanderthal populations". [23]

THE GOLDEN AGE COMES TO AN END

When Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden there was a thousand years of
relative peace during which time mankind flourished as they explored their world
and populated the lands with their kind. This golden age, where humanity is
viewed as having generated from an earlier perfection is a common theme
throughout a variety of cultures, but it is the traditions of the Greeks in particular
that we learn more about this time of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and
prosperity.

Hesiod the Greek oral poet generally thought by scholars to have been active
between 750 and 650 BC, maintained that during the golden age, before the
invention of the arts and of private property, primitive communism prevailed,
and the earth produced food in such abundance that there was no need for

369
 agriculture.

"[Men] lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from
toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms
never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all
devils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with
sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare
them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and
peace." [24]

AN APPEAL TO THE MOST HIGH

Then in the days of Japheth came the Watchers, angels whose mission was to
watch over mankind and to guide them. The Watchers dispersed to carry out
their instructions and all would have been well had it not been for a group of two-
hundred that had descended at Mount Hermon burning with lust for
womankind. From then on the age of peace and harmony came abruptly to an
end as these Watchers and their hybrid children, the Nephilim, wrought havoc
upon the world of man with war and lawlessness

Sooner or later the wars and murder would take its toll and as the population
of mankind declined their death cries reached the ears of four of the "First Ones"
in the heavenly realm.

"And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from

370
 heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all
lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to
another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their
cryingst up to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of
heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our cause
before the Most High."' (1 Enoch 9:1-3)

The four Archangels approached YAHU, the Lord of Ages, on behalf of

mankind and described what the rebellious Watchers had done, knowing that
God was aware of what was happening and not knowing why he had delayed in
punishing the rebels.

"Thou seest all things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou
seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on
earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in
heaven, which men were striving to learn: And Semyaza, to whom
Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they
have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with
the women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all
kinds of sins. And the women have borne Nephilim, and the whole
earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And
now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making
their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended:
and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are wrought on
the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and
Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not
say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these." (1 ENOCH 9:4-
11)

A PLAN IS REVEALED

Of course YAHU knew what the rebel Watchers were doing but he held back
his judgment upon them. The seeds of discord had been planted long before and
they needed to grow before the weeds could be uprooted and destroyed.

Long before man had been created YAHU had created millions of Malakim in
the heavenly realm and the heavens were filled with their voices and thoughts.
Each was created unique, having the powers of free thought and reason yet
sharing the nature and substance of the father and the son, for like them they too
were spirits of living energy.

The First Ones were the greatest among the Malakim, for they were closer to
the ones who had created them and they held a special place in the heavenly
realm. One of these was Semyaza who had been given great gifts of power and
knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. However, once in a

371
 while Semyaza left his station and alone ventured into the void places. Their he
brooded and desire grew hot within him. He grew jealous of the special position
that the Archangel Mikael (Michael) held, for though being one of the first ones
like himself, Mikael was the first of all creation and therefore he was the Chief
Prince and Leader of all.

Semyaza looked on and jealousy filled his heart for he coveted the position,
power and glory of the first born. So he began to conceive dark thoughts that
were unlike those of his brethren and through him seeds of discord began to
spread throughout the heavenly realm.

Some of the Malakim hearkened to the words of Semyaza and rebellious

thoughts began to infect them like a creeping dark shadow of evil on the waters of
light. One among them, Satanael (Satan) listened to the words of Semjaz and
followed his ways, but Azazel was cunning like that of a serpent and he kept his
thoughts hidden. But YAHU, who knows all things, watched and waited for he
could see the creeping darkness spreading among his creations. However it was
not yet time to reveal that which should not be thought and expose those whose
hearts had deviated from the divine.

Many things did YAHU speak to the Malakim but not all things were revealed
to them, for to none but himself had YAHU revealed all that he had in mind, not
even to Mikael, nor the chief Malakim were such things revealed. But, in every
age there came forth things that were new and had no foretelling, for they do not
proceed from the past. So it was that YAHU revealed new creations, and the
Malakim rejoiced when each was revealed. But still the shadow of darkness
continued to grow in the heart of Semyaza and his associates and they waited and
plotted.

Then the day came when something new was born, something completely
different from anything seen before. For YAHU poured a drop of his essence into
an obscure region of the heavens, an endless dark void of nothingness that was
unlike that which the Malakim inhabited, and who did not even know that it
existed. But YAHU knew for his arm was long and he could go where no other
had been, and here he contrived a great plan, one that would shake the heavens
to their very foundations. A new creation was about to be born through which in
time the heavens would be cleansed of all discontent and disorder. [25]

This great plan of YAHU would later be revealed through the Bible but that is
not will be discussed in the present work. Suffice to say it would involve the
creation of man who though lower than the Malakim would one day be crowned
with glory and honour for their part in bringing both the heavens and the earth
under the Kingdom of God. This kingdom will embrace all created intelligences,
both in heaven and earth who willingly subject themselves to YAHU and his
chosen ruler, the Messiah. The kingdom of God is, therefore, universal in that it
includes created all created beings including the Malakim and mankind.

In the Kingdom of God there will be no room for the likes of Semyaza and the

372
 rebel Watchers who would be punished. However, there were other Malakim
who were not so open in their rebellious activities. For example, Satanael did not
defile himself with womankind and so he would escape the punishment that
would befall Azazel and Semyaza, and the two-hundred Watchers who shared in
their sins. However, Satanael would later reveal himself by undermining the
work of God through his temptation of Eve and causing man to be cast out of
Eden. For this he was told that he would be punished - but not immediately.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his
heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Through Satanael YAHU will sort out the chaff from the wheat, but this will
take time before the Kingdom can be realised. As for Satanael he harbours plans
to destroy mankind. He does not know how he would meet his end, only that he
will at the hands of mankind. But his delusional mind reasons that if he could
destroy mankind then God would be made to look a liar and he would therefore
not perish. But his power is constrained by God so Satanael has to use the only
weapon in his arsenal - deception. He is cunning, intelligent, and an opportunist.
He is also without pity and compassion and his purpose is to deceive mankind to
destroy themselves... but that is another story to be told in another book The
Answer To All There Is to be published in 2015.

JUDGEMENT OF THE TWO HUNDRED

YAHU listened to the words of his four faithful Archangels who pleaded the
cause for man, and declared the time had come to bring the fallen angels to
justice according to his plan. First, special judgment was passed upon Azazel
because it was he who more than any other who taught unrighteousness on earth
and revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men
should not have been taught. Hence we read in the Book of Enoch that Raphael is
ordered to bind up Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into darkness beneath the
desert, which is in Dudael, where he would remain imprisoned until the Great
Day of Judgment when he would be cast into the ever burning fire, meaning that
his immortal life will be extinguished forever. (1 Enoch 10:4-6)

As for Semyaza and his associates it was the Archangel Mikael who was tasked
to bind them, but not before they had witnessed their sons killing each other in
mutual destruction. Here we see a clue as to the reason for the sudden
disappearance of the Nephilim (Neanderthals).

After Semyaza and his associates had witnessed the death of their children the
Nephilim, they were to be led away and held fast for seventy generations within

373
 the earth. Here they would remain to contemplate what they had lost knowing
that there was no forgiveness for them. Finally, after their imprisonment had
come to an end, they would be led off to the abyss of fire, where they were to
share the fate of Azazel. (1 Enoch 10:11-15) In due course Satan and all those
angels that followed him would also be cast in to the lake of fire, whereupon their
immortal lives would be finally extinguished forever.

God next sent "Enoch a righteous man" to the Watchers to tell them of the
sentence that had been passed on them.

"Go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high
heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with
women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto
themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth:
And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin: and inasmuch as
they delight themselves in their children. The murder of their
beloved ones shall they see, and over the destruction of their
children shall they lament, and shall make supplication unto
eternity, but mercy and peace shall ye not attain." [bold mine]

Enoch was to tell the Watchers that they would witness the extermination of
their children, the Nephilim, before judgement upon them would be passed. But
Azazel a special judgement had already been reserved for him.

"Azazel, thou shalt have no peace: a severe sentence has gone forth
against thee to put thee in bonds: And thou shalt not have toleration
nor request granted to thee, because of the unrighteousness which thou
hast taught, and because of all the works of godlessness and
unrighteousness and sin which thou hast shown to men." (1 Enoch 13:
1-3)

When Enoch stood before Semyaza and the other Watchers and announced the
sentence that had been passed upon them, they were terrified but held out a
glimmer of hope that they would not suffer the same fate as Azazel, who had been
the worst offender against God. They begged Enoch to speak on their behalf
through a petition to God because they themselves could not present it as they
could no longer return to the heavenly realm or have an audience with God. (1
Enoch 13: 5-6)

"And they besought me to draw up a petition for them that they might
find forgiveness, and to read their petition in the presence of the Lord
of heaven. For from thenceforward they could not speak (with Him)
nor lift up their eyes to heaven for shame of their sins for which they

374
 had been condemned. Then I wrote out their petition, and the prayer in
regard to their spirits and their deeds individually and in regard to
their requests that they should have forgiveness and length." (1 Enoch
13: 3-8)

Then Enoch left the Watchers and sat down at the waters of Dan to the south
of the west of Mount Hermon reading the petition to himself until he fell asleep.
While he slept he had a dream and saw visions of chastisement. A voice told him
to go back to the Watchers and to tell them what was in the visions and to
reprimand them. (1 Enoch 13: 6-8)

Enoch went to the Watchers who were by now weeping in abject terror, their
faces covered fearing the words of judgment that Enoch was about to tell them.

"I wrote out your petition, and in my vision it appeared thus, that your
petition will not be granted unto you throughout all the days of
eternity, and that judgment has been finally passed upon you: yea
(your petition) will not be granted unto you. And from henceforth you
shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity, and in bonds of the earth
the decree has gone forth to bind you for all the days of the world. (1
Enoch 14: 4-6)

Enoch now told the Watchers why their petition for mercy had not been
granted. They were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all
generations of the world. As spiritual beings of heaven this was their dwelling. No
wives had been appointed to them because they were spirits and not made of
flesh. Mankind was different being physical and unlike the Malakim, who had
been created individually, it was necessary for man to have wives in order to
procreate and have children. (1 Enoch 15:4-6)

Enoch now told the Watchers their fate. "From henceforth you shall not ascend
into heaven unto all eternity, and in bonds of the earth the decree has gone forth
to bind you for all the days of the world." (1 Enoch 14:15) No longer would the
Watchers return to the heavens, but as spirits they would be bound in the earth
for all eternity.

As the Watchers contemplated what was to happen to them, Enoch struck

them another body blow. He said to them that although they had been in heaven,
all the mysteries had not been revealed to them, meaning God's plan. The
knowledge that they had passed on to mankind was worthless but would cause
mankind to do much evil upon the earth.

"You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been
revealed to you, and you knew worthless ones, and these in the

375
 hardness of your hearts you have made known to the women, and
through these mysteries women and men work much evil on earth." (1
Enoch 16:2)

SENTENCES ARE CARRIED OUT

Judgement had been passed on to Semyaza and his associates, who were to be
removed into a place of darkness where they would remain until the day of "Final
Judgement" whereupon they were to be cast into the fire of destruction that had
been prepared for them. Being spirits made of living energy this would be the
only way that they could be destroyed for fire consumes all. This place of fire is
the same as Gehenna the 'Lake of Fire' described in Revelation 19 and 20 and is
where the future destruction of the wicked (angels and men) is symbolised by the
Valley of Hinnom to which Gehenna refers. It is a place south of Jerusalem where
the bodies of dead animals and rubbish were taken to be burned. The fire burned
constantly in the valley since additional fuel was frequently being cast into it.

Those consigned to Lake of Fire will be those whose names are not found in
the "Book of Life", (Revelation 2:15) and the lake of fire is described in Scripture
as a place "where their worm dieth not", (Mark 9:44), a place of "everlasting fire",
(Matthew 18:8) where "the smoke of their torment ascendeth", (Revelation 14:11)
and where the "Second Death occurs" (meaning total annihilation forever). Men
who have died (the first death) will have an opportunity to redeem themselves in
the resurrection and the thousand year reign of Jesus, after which Satan will be
released once more for a short time and those that succumb to his influence will
share his fate, the lake of fire and final destruction. But that is another story...

In his vision Enoch witnessed the temporary place of confinement for Semyaza
and his associates describing what he saw.

376
 "And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among
them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike
towards the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw
a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly
founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but
it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great
burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The
angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a
prison for the stars and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll
over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of
the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come
forth at their appointed times. And He was wroth with them, and
bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated
(even) for ten thousand years. And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand
the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their
spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall
lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods, (here shall they
stand,) till the day of the great judgement in which they shall be judged
till they are made an end of. And the women also of the angels who
went astray shall become sirens.' And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision,
the ends of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen.' " (1 Enoch
18: 11-16, 19: 1-3)

Then Enoch saw another place in his vision and here he saw Gehenna.

"And from thence I went to another place, which was still more
horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there
which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss,
being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or
magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. Then I said: 'How fearful
is the place and how terrible to look upon!' Then Uriel answered me,
one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why
hast thou such fear and affright?' And I answered: 'Because of this
fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the pain.' And he said
unto me: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they
will be imprisoned for ever.' (1 Enoch 20: 11-16, 19: 1-3) [bold
mine]

This is where Satanael and his angels will eventually be cast, as will Semyaza
and his associates and those of mankind that are not in the book of life. All will
share the same fate - total and final annihilation.

For your attention! The Book of Enoch is a book that should be read by present
day Christians as it was read by Jesus and the early Christians. If you familiar
with the Bible you will be able to determine much that is said within the book and

377
 be able to make the connections that are common to both writings. It is for this
reason I have placed at the end of this book a copy of the book in an appendix. It
is the same one that was translated by the famous scholar R.H. Charles, 1906
from the Ethiopian which is also to be found in the Public Domain.

THE MYSTERY SOLVED

We now come to the reason why the Nephilim (Neanderthals) disappeared
from the scene so suddenly. Semyaza and his associates before being bound were
told that they would witness the destruction of their children. The task was
assigned to Gabriel.

"And to Gabriel said the Lord: Proceed against the bastards and the
reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the
children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers
from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them
one against the other that they may destroy each other in
battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request
that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their
fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that
each one of them will live five hundred years." (1 Enoch 10: 9-11) [bold
mine]

Furthermore, Enoch is told to, "declare to the Watchers of the heaven who
have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves
with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto
themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall
have no peace nor forgiveness of sin: and inasmuch as they delight themselves in
their children, The murder of their beloved ones shall they see, and over
the destruction of their children shall they lament, and shall make
supplication unto eternity, but mercy and peace shall ye not attain." (1 Enoch 12:
4-6) [bold mine]

378
 In another ancient document we read read:

"And against the angels whom He had sent upon the earth, He was
exceedingly wroth, and He gave commandment to root them out of all
their dominion, and He bade us to bind them in the depths of the
earth, and behold they are bound in the midst of them, and are (kept)
separate. And against their sons went forth a command from before
His face that they should be smitten with the sword, and be removed
from under heaven. And He said 'My spirit shall not always abide on
man; for they also are flesh and their days shall be one hundred and
twenty years'. And He sent His sword into their midst that each
should slay his neighbour, and they began to slay each other
till they all fell by the sword and were destroyed from the
earth. And their fathers were witnesses (of their destruction), and
after this they were bound in the depths of the earth for ever, until the
day of the great condemnation, when judgment is executed on all those
who have corrupted their ways and their works before the Lord. And
He destroyed all from their places, and there was not left one of them
whom He judged not according to all their wickedness." (Book of
Jubiliees 5: 6-11)

Thanks to what is written in the Bible, the Book of Enoch and other writings
the mystery for the sudden demise of the Neanderthals have been solved. From
what we have seen from the texts aforementioned there is consensus. The
Neanderthals who were the same as the Nephilim described by the ancients
disappeared suddenly from the face of the earth because they were forced to slay
each other until they all fell by the sword and were destroyed from the earth.

Anthropologists have for a long time attributed to the demise of the

Neanderthals to human violent intervention, such as is highlighted in a recent
Time Magazine article published in 2009 under the heading, CSI STONE AGE:

379
 DID HUMANS KILL NEANDERTHALS?

"The study, published this week in the Journal of Human Evolution is

part of a growing body of evidence that suggests contact between
Neanderthals and humans was often violent and may have played a
part in the extinction of our closest prehistoric relatives. Squat, rugged,
and well suited to cold, Neanderthals dominated Eurasia for the better
part of 200,000 years, surviving an ice age, but the species
mysteriously disappeared around the same time modern humans
spread out from Africa into their habitat." [26]

Likewise, author and evolutionist Danny Vendramini in his book "Them and
Us" believes that the violent extinction of the Neanderthals was of their own
making. In the book he says that "new archaeological and genetic evidence to
show [Neandertals] weren't docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic
carnivores..." [27] He says that "Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and
cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known
as the Mediterranean Levant. Because the two species were sexually compatible,
Eurasian Neanderthals also abducted and raped human females.... this prolonged
period of cannibalistic and sexual predation began about 100,000 years ago and
that by 50,000 years ago, the human population in the Levant was reduced to as
few as 50 individuals." [28]

That Neanderthals violently attacked humans and even ate them is something
we already know from what the Bible and the Book of Enoch says. So an
evolutionist saying the same thing is refreshing. Vendramini's main theme for the
book is that Neanderthals hunted our ancestors and almost wiped them out. "The
only humans to survive were those born with modern traits like high intelligence,
creativity, aggression, language and guile." He said. "These fully modern Cro-
Magnons turned the tables on their former predators and eventually annihilated
them." [29] What Vendramini did not know was that the Cro-Magnons were the
Watchers, and it was the Watchers sent by God that initialised the extermination
of the Neanderthals (Nephilim).

A leading authority on Eurasian Neanderthals, Professor John Shea from

Stony Brook University in New York, has evaluated Vendramini's research and
said, "Vendramini presents a truly unique and innovative picture of the role of
Neanderthal predation in human evolution. He pulls together countless different
threads of scientific evidence to re-cast Neanderthals as 'apex predators',
proverbial 'wolves with knives' who were effective rivals with our ancestors." [30]

I would say that Danny Vendramini is basically right in his hypothesis, except
for one major difference. As the Book of Enoch says, the Neanderthals were the
Nephilim, and they killed each other to extinction, driven mad with violent
hatred towards one another as a result of divine intervention through the
Archangel Gabriel. "And to Gabriel said the Lord: Proceed against the bastards

380
 and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the
children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and
cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy
each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have".

Vendramini says that the Neanderthals wiped out most of mankind, and this is
in effect what Genesis and the Book of Enoch says. "And then Michael, Uriel,
Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed
upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said
one to another, The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their
crying up to the gates of heaven. " [bold mine] Hence, because the Nephilim were
bent upon the extermination of mankind it was for this reason that God through
his loyal angels intervened. Hence, in the end the Neanderthals turned their
weapons against each other until none were left. Their fathers, the rebel
Watchers, watched the extermination of their children, and were helpless to
intervene.

The mystery of the sudden disappearance of the Neanderthals has now been
solved. It is thanks to the words of our ancestors who wrote about what had
happened that has solved the mystery.

THE IMPRISONED WATCHERS GET A VISITOR

The Nephilim had been annihilated and now it was now time for the rebellious
Watchers, Semyaza and his associates, to meet their fate. We are told in Genesis
and the Book of Enoch that having been forced to witness the destruction of their
children the Nephilim that the Watchers (Cro-Magnons) were then imprisoned in
the depths of the earth awaiting the Great Day of Judgement, when they would be
cast in the "Lake of Fire".

Just as fire consumes everything this signified that the immortal spirits of
Semyaza and his associates (and Satan and his angels) would be consumed and
their lives extinguished forever sometime in the future. As yet this has not taken
place so the fallen Watchers remain today languishing in their prison awaiting
their final destruction. Then two thousand years ago they had a visitor.

When they had once lived in heaven, Semyaza and his associates did not know
of God's plan for bringing order to the heavens and the earth through his son. But
when Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, one of the first things he did
was to visit them to tell them what God had planned from the beginning. What
transpired at that meeting is not recorded but one can imagine the terror of the
fallen Watchers when they realised that the end of their existence was close at
hand.

We are told about the visit of Jesus to the rebel Watchers in the New
Testament.

381
 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to
bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits
- to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days
of Noah while the ark was being built. (1 Peter 3:19-21)

SPIRITS OF THE NEPHILIM UNLEASHED

While this dissertation about the Nephilim is all but finished, if you think that
they have gone for good then you greatly mistaken. While it is true that the
Nephilim (Neanderthals) had been exterminated by their own hands it was only
their mortal bodies that had been struck down. These would, according to the
laws of nature, disintegrate into dust or if buried were to be found millennium
later in the nineteenth century. However, this was not the last we hear from
them. They are still alive!

From the time the Watchers descended in the days of Jared (4688 - 3584 BC)
to the Flood 3354 BC the last of the Nephilim had not lived more that five
hundred years in the flesh. However, like their fathers they were infused with
spirit which meant that they were immortal. So what happened to them? Once
again it is Enoch who tells us what happened to the Nephilim spirits.

"And now, the Nephilim, who are produced from the spirits and flesh,
shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their
dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they
are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and
primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall
they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their
dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the
earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] And the spirits of the
Nephilim afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work
destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but
nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits
shall rise up against the children of men and against the women,
because they have proceeded from them." (1 Enoch 15: 8-12)

Alas for mankind. It is true that the Nephilim had been destroyed but their
immortal spirits had, like their fathers, had been imprisoned in the darkest
regions of the earth, a place aptly named Tartarus. From here, although they
were unable to directly attack man at a physical level they can still do a great deal
of harm by the power of their mind. They see in Sataniel and ally who could one
day free them. So they do all with their limited power to hinder the purposes of
God and to help extend the influence of Sataniel their new leader. So they
deceive, discourage, destroy, divide and wage persistent war against mankind
through the intensity of their thoughts to turn people away from God and his

382
 Messiah.

Now that the Gentile Times have come to and the Kingdom of God on earth is
at hand, their efforts have grown even much more intense, because they know
that their end is near.

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith
and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such
teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have
been seared as with a hot iron." (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

The evil spirits that were the Nephilim are known today as demons. Such is
their intensity of hate towards mankind that they are able to merge their spirits
with the spirits of willing people who have opened themselves up to their
influence. Such was the case as the man that Jesus came upon when he was
teaching in the region of Gerasenes.

"They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake
from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-
possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn
clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw
Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice,
"What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg
you, don't torture me!" For Jesus had commanded the evil spirit to
come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was
chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains
and had been driven by the demon into solitary places. Jesus asked
him, "What is your name?" "Legion," he replied, because many demons
had gone into him. And they begged him repeatedly not to order them
to go into the Abyss. A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the
hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into them, and he
gave them permission. When the demons came out of the man, they
went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the
lake and was drowned." [31]

383
 In the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mark, we are told that Jesus cast out
many demons or evil angels from those afflicted with various ailments. He also
lent his power to some of his disciples (Luke 10:17). The demons or unclean
spirits themselves were said to often recognise Jesus as the Messiah as we read in
the Gospel of Mark.

"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went
into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his
teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the
teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was
possessed by an impure spirit cried out, "What do you want with us,
Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-
the Holy One of God!""Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of
him!" The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him
with a shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each
other, "What is this? A new teaching-and with authority! He even gives
orders to impure spirits and they obey him." (Mark 1: 21- 27)

Jesus had taught that when demons were driven from a human, they went
through dry places as disembodied spirits seeking respite. "When an impure
spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not
find it." (Matthew 12:43)

WHY WAS THE FLOOD NECESSARY?

Genesis and the Book of Enoch did not say how long it took for all the

384
 Nephilim (Neanderthals) and then the Watchers (Cro-Magnons) ceased to
exist on the earth, but what Semyaza and his associates left behind was a
damaged world. Man had been corrupted by what the Watchers had taught them
so that war, violence, greed and death continued unabated. Furthermore,
corruption of the flesh was rife. The Watchers, having experienced the sexual
pleasures when copulating with women also experimented having sex with
animals. [32]

Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook in their book, "The Dead
Sea Scrolls: A New Translation" who translated the ancient text, Book of Giants
which was found among the Dead Sea scrolls tells us that the Watchers carried
out all kinds of unnatural sexual acts. "The two hundred angels chose animals on
which to perform unnatural acts, including, presumably, humans." In the text of
the scroll it is recorded that each Watcher had sex with donkeys, asses, rams,
goats, and every beast of the field and from every animal and even birds
miscegenation.

Even when the Watchers and Nephilim were gone mankind continued to
follow their ways and carried out unnatural vile sexual practices so that bestiality
and anal sex was common place among them. So when the Book of Enoch says
that "all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and
everything that walks on the earth - all of them corrupted their ways and their
orders", this is what was being described.

Similarly, in the book of Jude we are told, "And the angels which kept not their
first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and
Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over
to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 6, 7) [bold mind]

The world had become a cesspool of corruption with violence and sexual
perversions running riot. This was far removed from the Golden Age of peace
that had lasted a thousand years, before Semyaza and his associates had come
along and meddled in human affairs. Things had got so bad that "God looked
upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders,
and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His
eyes." (Book of Jubilees 5:2-4)

Talking about mankind Enoch said, "there arose much godlessness, and they
committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their
ways. ... And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were
taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin. (1 Enoch 10:8-9) And in Genesis we read,
"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how
corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their
ways. (Genesis 6: 11-12)

There was only one thing that could be done and that was to cleanse the earth

385
 from such corruption and perversion. God said to Noah, "I am going to put an
end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely
going to destroy both them and the earth." (Genesis 6: 11-13) For this reason God
said that he would cleanse the earth and destroy man and all flesh upon the face
of the earth which he had created. (Book of Jubilees 5:4)

There was one problem. Not everyone had been tainted by the Watchers. Noah
for one was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
walked faithfully with God. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
(Genesis 6:9) Noah's father Methuselah too who was perfect and upright with
God (Book of Jasher 4:15) And of course there was Enoch. So righteous was he
that he holds the rare distinction, according to the biblical record, that he did not
die but instead God "took him away." (Genesis 5:24)

There were others too who were also untainted by the corruption that flourished
upon the earth. What would God do with these? There was only one solution.
YAHU would temporarily remove those who followed his commands through
death. Later he would raise them in the distant future at the time of the
resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous, that he had ordained would
occur with the coming of his Kingdom upon the earth. They would live again in
the thousand year reign of his chosen one. It was a hope that all Christians
sought, as the apostle Paul would say.

"I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is
written in the Prophets and I have the same hope in God as these men
themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous
and the wicked. (Acts 24:15)

The Book of Jasher confirms that this is what happened.

"And all men who walked in the ways of the Lord, died in
those days, before the Lord brought the evil upon man which he had
declared, for this was from the Lord, that they should not see the evil
which the Lord spoke of concerning the sons of men. And Noah found
grace in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord chose him and his children
to raise up seed from them upon the face of the whole earth. [33]

Methuselah died just before the Flood and Noah of course was told to build an
ark, and he and his family were saved when the Quaternary extinction event
occurred that included great floods that swamped many lands wiping the earth
clean of all corruption. This occurred in 3554 BC and through Noah and his
family and other survivors, the earth was replenished, born again new. However,
not all rebellious angels in the heavens had been eliminated, and one called Satan
and his angels were determined that he would not share the same fate as
Semyzah and his associates. God's plan though has remained in force ever since
and soon, perhaps even in our day the culmination of that plan will come to

386
 fruition.

EPILOGUE
We now bring this book to a close. I believe that what I have presented in the
book offers a viable alternative to the theory of evolution that evolutionists have
promoted for the last hundred and fifty years with respects to the origins of man
and especially where Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals have stood in the scheme
of things.

If you are a Christian then I hope that this book will encourage you to stand
firm in your belief. If you are person of no particular persuasion but have been
told that the Bible contains a load of bunkum, I hope that what I have shown you
will persuade you to re-evaluate your position and take a closer look as to what
the Bible has to say.

To those of you who believe in evolution I purposely investigated the theory

that you hold so dear using the very words of those who taught you. I wanted to
show you how you have been deceived in believing in a one hundred and fifty
year old fantasy. Of course if you disagree with my assessment even though it is
based upon evolutionist statements then that is fine with me. But please don't
call those who disagree with your faith and who hold a different view to yours
"idiots". You would not wish to be tarnished with the same brush would you?

Finally, to die hard evolutionist fundamentalists who would not under any
circumstances give up their belief in the theory of evolution in whatever capacity
it is presented, even if God came down and slapped them in the face, I leave with
the words of the apostle Peter ringing in your ears to remind you what happened
in 3554 BC when God's plan has not yet come to completion.

"Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both
of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want
you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the
command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles.
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers
will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They
will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our
ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the
beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long
ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth
was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also
the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the
same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for
fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of
the ungodly.

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is
like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is

387
not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead
he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to
come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The
heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by
fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since
everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you
to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the
day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the
destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the
heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells." (2 Peter: 3:1 -13
NIV)[bold mine]

*** THE END ***

388
 OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR
EVOLUTION'S COUP DE GRACE

Nephilim Skeletons Found proved that the fossil record does not show that
there was a common ancestor that spawned human evolution. What about the
science of biology and genetics? Do not these sciences prove evolution? The
answer is a big NO. EVOLUTION'S Coup de Grâce is a study that shows how
man's almost hairless condition and remarkable penis proves that there could
never have been an ape-like common ancestor.

Reviews on Amazon

"In short, this is a fantastic read that fires a scientific, well-informed,

and brutally logical shot right through evolutionary theory."
- R Wolfe

"This book brings into focus the major flaws in Darwin's Evolutionary
theory. For too long anyone daring to question the theory of Evolution
was written off as a religious fringe dweller. Well Harding has most
eloquently demonstrated that the Darwinian Emperor and all his
entourage are not wearing any clothes and would you believe it, they
aren't covered in insulating fur and their gentalia even operate on
hydraulics! Very un-ape like indeed! How un-evolutionary."
- B. Gollop

"I have read a number of Fred Harding's books and have to say that
this is one of his best works. He tackles a somewhat taboo subject of
the evolution of the Primate penis in a scientific way, looking at all the
evidence, which creates a most compelling argument for Intelligent
Design."
- J. Norfolk

THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES ARE FULLFILLED

389
 This incredible book proves that the Times of the Gentiles as spoken of by
Jesus have been fulfilled. Here are a few paragraphs from the book for you to
contemplate.

"Jesus now proceeded to describe the signs that heralded the destruction of
the Jerusalem and the Temple. We will talk about these later, but after describing
these signs he went onto say that there would be great wrath on this people (the
Jews) and that "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all
the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24 NIV)

History will show that the words of Jesus regarding the destruction of
Jerusalem came about just as he predicted. This happened in 70 AD, within the
generation that was living when the prophesy was made. Then later, a false
Messiah arose who led the remaining Jews to rebellion. However, the Emperor
Hadrian put that insurrection down in 133 AD, and the surviving Jews were
scattered across the empire, forbidden to ever set foot in Jerusalem again. From
then on Jerusalem was occupied by armies of foreign powers (Gentiles) - until
the twentieth century.

Then in 1908 a seed was planted in the sand dunes outside Jaffa when a parcel
of land was purchased by Jews, which was forbidden by the Moslem Ottoman
authorities, in what was then called Palestine. For forty years in the wilderness
the seed grew into a strong plant, so that in 1948 after defeating defeated Arab
armies who sought to destroy the fledgling nation from being born, the plant
became the nation of Israel. However, although Israel had been reborn after two-
thousand years, the scripture said that Jerusalem would be trampled on until the
times of the Gentiles had been fulfilled and yet still the western part of the city
remained in the hands of the Arabs. Then in 1967, once again Arab armies were
amassed against Israel, and once again they were defeated. In the process the
entire city of Jerusalem was restored to Israel.

390
 Many people today ask the question: "Have we seen the actual
accomplishment of Jesus' prediction?" Does the takeover of the old city and the
temple site in Jerusalem mean that the times of the Gentiles have indeed been
fulfilled? It is the author's belief through reading the scriptures, looking at the
prophesies of Jesus and the prophets, and comparing the events that have
transpired in the twentieth century, that the period that Jesus called the times of
the Gentile have been fulfilled. How I came to such a conclusion is what this book
is all about. In the process we are going to see some incredible revelations that
prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the times of the Gentiles have come to
an end. "

The book is in the last stages of writing (August 2014) and will be published in
October 2014, or before.

THE ANSWER TO ALL THERE IS

When you read The Answer To All There Is you will be embarking on an epic
journey through time, space and the supernatural to uncover the ultimate answer
to life, the universe and everything. You are going to learn about the life and
death struggles of humankind throughout the ages, of darkness and of light, of
good and evil, and the rivers of blood that have flowed in the name of religion,
politics and greed. But this is but the tip of the iceberg because beneath the
surface are other forces at work, and things are not what they appear to be. What
happens in the universe and the future depends upon the outcome of a titanic
struggle now being raged by forces unseen by humankind. Yet it is mankind who
holds the key to the resolution of this ageless conflict and the climax of that
conflict is fast approaching - the outcome is certain.

The Answer To All There Is is a book unlike any other you have read
before... Look out for it in 2015 because YOU owe it to yourself to find
out the answer to all there is because when you do, that is when your
life really begins... or ends.

391
 APPENDIX
THE BOOK OF ENOCH
Translated from the Ethiopian by R.H. Charles, 1906."
Edited by Fred Harding

The following is the translation from the Ethiopian by R.H. Charles, 1906 in its
entirety and which is in the Public Domain. The author has changed the text with
respects to the word giants only, changing it to Nephilim, for reasons expressed
in Chapter 10 of the present work.

BOOK OF WATCHERS
Chapter 1
1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and
righteous, who will be
2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be
removed. And he took up his parable and said - Enoch a righteous man, whose
eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which
the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I
understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for
to come.

392
 3 Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them: The
Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling,
4 And the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai,
[And appear from His camp]
And appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens.
5 And all shall be smitten with fear
And the Watchers shall quake,
And great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth
6 And the high mountains shall be shaken, And the high hills shall be made low,
And shall melt like wax before the flame
7 And the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder,
And all that is upon the earth shall perish,
And there shall be a judgement upon all (men).
8 But with the righteous He will make peace. And will protect the elect, And
mercy shall be upon them. And they shall all belong to God, And they shall be
prospered, And they shall all be blessed. And He will help them all, And light
shall appear unto them, And He will make peace with them'.
9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all
the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the
hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Chapter 2
1 Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change
their orbits, and the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set
in order each in its season, and
2 transgress not against their appointed order. Behold ye the earth, and give heed
to the things which take place upon it from first to last, how steadfast they are,
how none of the things upon earth
3 change, but all the works of God appear to you. Behold the summer and the
winter, how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie
upon it.

Chapter 3
1 Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they had
withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their
foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes.

Chapter 4
1 And again, observe ye the days of summer how the sun is above the earth
over against it. And you seek shade and shelter by reason of the heat of the sun,
and the earth also burns with growing heat, and so you cannot tread on the earth,
or on a rock by reason of its heat.

393
 Chapter 5
1 Observe ye how the trees cover themselves with green leaves and bear fruit:
wherefore give ye heed and know with regard to all His works, and recognize how
He that liveth for ever hath made them so.
2 and all His works go on thus from year to year for ever, and all the tasks which
they accomplish for Him, and their tasks change not, but according as God hath
ordained so is it done.
3 And behold how the sea and the rivers in like manner accomplish and change
not their tasks from His commandments'.
4 But ye -ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of the
Lord,But ye have turned away and spoken proud and hard words With your
impure mouths against His greatness. Oh, ye hard-hearted, ye shall find no
peace.
5 Therefore shall ye execrate your days, And the years of your life shall perish,
And the years of your destruction shall be multiplied in eternal execration, And
ye shall find no mercy.
6a In those days ye shall make your names an eternal execration unto all the
righteous,
6b And by you shall all who curse, curse, And all the sinners and godless shall
imprecate by you,
6c And for you the godless there shall be a curse.
6d And all the . . . shall rejoice,
6e And there shall be forgiveness of sins,
6f And every mercy and peace and forbearance:
6g There shall be salvation unto them, a goodly light.
6h And for all of you sinners there shall be no salvation,
6i But on you all shall abide a curse.
7a But for the elect there shall be light and joy and peace,
7b And they shall inherit the earth.
8 And then there shall be bestowed upon the elect wisdom,
And they shall all live and never again sin,
Either through ungodliness or through pride: But they who are wise shall be
humble.
9 And they shall not again transgress,
Nor shall they sin all the days of their life, Nor shall they die of (the divine) anger
or wrath,But they shall complete the number of the days of their life. And their
lives shall be increased in peace,
And the years of their joy shall be multiplied, In eternal gladness and peace, All
the days of their life.

Chapter 6
1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those
days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2 And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said
to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men

394
 3 and beget us children.' And Semyaza, who was their leader, said unto them:
'I fear ye will not
4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great
sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind
ourselves by mutual imprecations
5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and
bound themselves
6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who
descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called
it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn
7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the
names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel,
Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal,
8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael,
Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.

Chapter 7
1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each
chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves
with them, and they taught them charms
2and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with
plants. And they
3 became pregnant, and they bare great Nephilim, whose height was three
thousand ells: Who consumed
4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the
Nephilim turned against
5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts,
and reptiles, and
6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid
accusation against the lawless ones.

Chapter 8
1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and
breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of
working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the
beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all
2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed
fornication, and they
3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semyaza taught
enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments,
Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of
the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and
Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry
went up to heaven . . .

395
 Chapter 9
1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and
saw much blood being
2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And
they said one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of
their cryingst up to the gates of heaven.
3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit,
saying, "Bring our cause
4 before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords,
God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory
(standeth) unto all the generations of the
5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast
made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked
and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all
6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath
done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal
secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which
7 men were striving to learn: And Semyaza, to whom Thou hast given authority
to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon
the earth, and have slept with the
9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins.
And the women have
10 borne Nephilim, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and
unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying
and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have
ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are
11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass,
and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to
us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'

Chapter 10
1 Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to
the son of Lamech,
2 and said to him: Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal
to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a
deluge is about to come
3 upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him
that he may escape 4 and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the
world. And again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast
him into the darkness: and make an opening
5 in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him
rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for
ever, and cover his face that he may
6,7 not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the
fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the

396
 healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of
men may not perish through all the secret things that the
8 Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has
been corrupted
9 through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin. And to
Gabriel said the Lord: Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and
against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and]
the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]:
send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in
10 battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e.
their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for
they hope to live an eternal life, and
11 that each one of them will live five hundred years. And the Lord said unto
Michael: Go, bind Semyaza and his associates who have united themselves with
women so as to have defiled themselves
12 with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one
another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast
for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement
and of their consummation, till the judgement that is
13 for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the
abyss of fire: and
14 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And
whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound
together with them to the end of all
15 generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the
Watchers, because
16 they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and
let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth
appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth shall
be planted in truth and joy for evermore.
17 And then shall all the righteous escape, And shall live till they beget thousands
of children,And all the days of their youth and their old age
Shall they complete in peace.
18 And then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and shall all be
planted with trees and
19 be full of blessing. And all desirable trees shall be planted on it, and they shall
plant vines on it: and the vine which they plant thereon shall yield wine in
abundance, and as for all the seed which is sown thereon each measure (of it)
shall bear a thousand, and each measure of olives shall yield
20 ten presses of oil. And cleanse thou the earth from all oppression, and from
all unrighteousness, and from all sin, and from all godlessness: and all the
uncleanness that is wrought upon the earth
21 destroy from off the earth. And all the children of men shall become righteous,
and all nations
22 shall offer adoration and shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me. And the
earth shall be cleansed from all defilement, and from all sin, and from all
punishment, and from all torment, and I will never again send (them) upon it

397
 from generation to generation and for ever.

Chapter 11
1 And in those days I will open the store chambers of blessing which are in the
heaven, so as to send 2 them down upon the earth over the work and labour of
the children of men. And truth and peace shall be associated together throughout
all the days of the world and throughout all the generations of men.

Chapter 12
1 Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men
knew where he was
2 hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. And his activities
had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones.
3 And I Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo!
the Watchers
4called me -Enoch the scribe- and said to me: 'Enoch, thou scribe of
righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high
heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and
have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves
5wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall have no
peace nor forgiveness
6 of sin: and inasmuch as they delight themselves in their children, The murder
of their beloved ones shall they see, and over the destruction of their children
shall they lament, and shall make supplication unto eternity, but mercy and
peace shall ye not attain."

Chapter 13
1 And Enoch went and said: Azazel, thou shalt have no peace: a severe
sentence has gone forth
2 against thee to put thee in bonds: And thou shalt not have toleration nor
request granted to thee, because of the unrighteousness which thou hast taught,
and because of all the works of godlessness
3 and unrighteousness and sin which thou hast shown to men. Then I went and
spoke to them all
4 together, and they were all afraid, and fear and trembling seized them. And
they besought me to draw up a petition for them that they might find forgiveness,
and to read their petition in the presence
5 of the Lord of heaven. For from thenceforward they could not speak (with Him)
nor lift up their
6 eyes to heaven for shame of their sins for which they had been condemned.
Then I wrote out their petition, and the prayer in regard to their spirits and their
deeds individually and in regard to their
7 requests that they should have forgiveness and length. And I went off and sat
down at the waters of Dan, in the land of Dan, to the south of the west of

398
 Hermon: I read their petition till I fell
8 asleep. And behold a dream came to me, and visions fell down upon me, and I
saw visions of chastisement, and a voice came bidding (me) I to tell it to the sons
of heaven, and reprimand them.
9 And when I awaked, I came unto them, and they were all sitting gathered
together, weeping in
10 Abelsjail, which is between Lebanon and Seneser, with their faces covered.
And I recounted before them all the visions which I had seen in sleep, and I
began to speak the words of righteousness, and to reprimand the heavenly
Watchers.

Chapter 14
1 The book of the words of righteousness, and of the reprimand of the eternal
Watchers in accordance
2 with the command of the Holy Great One in that vision. I saw in my sleep what
I will now say with a tongue of flesh and with the breath of my mouth: which the
Great One has given to men to
3 converse therewith and understand with the heart. As He has created and given
to man the power of understanding the word of wisdom, so hath He created me
also and given me the power of reprimanding
4 the Watchers, the children of heaven. I wrote out your petition, and in my
vision it appeared thus, that your petition will not be granted unto you
throughout all the days of eternity, and that judgement
5 has been finally passed upon you: yea (your petition) will not be granted unto
you. And from henceforth you shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity, and
in bonds of the earth the decree
6 has gone forth to bind you for all the days of the world. And (that) previously
you shall have seen the destruction of your beloved sons and ye shall have no
pleasure in them, but they shall fall before
7 you by the sword. And your petition on their behalf shall not be granted, nor yet
on your own: even though you weep and pray and speak all the words contained
in the writing which I have
8 written. And the vision was shown to me thus: Behold, in the vision clouds
invited me and a mist summoned me, and the course of the stars and the
lightnings sped and hastened me, and the winds in
9 the vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward, and bore me into heaven.
And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and surrounded
by tongues of fire: and it began to affright
10 me. And I went into the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which
was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor
(made) of crystals, and its groundwork was
11 of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightnings, and
between them were
12 fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water. A flaming fire
surrounded the walls, and its
13 portals blazed with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire

399
 and cold as ice: there
14 were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon
me. And as I quaked
15 and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a
second house, greater
16 than the former, and the entire portal stood open before me, and it was built
of flames of fire. And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and
magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to
17 you its splendour and its extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were
lightnings and the path
18of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein
a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the
shining sun, and there was the vision of
19 cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so
that I could not look
20 thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more
brightly than the sun and
21 was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold
His face by reason
22 of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him. The flaming fire
was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could
draw nigh Him: ten thousand times
23 ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most
holy ones who were
24 nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him. And until then I had
been prostrate on my face, trembling: and the Lord called me with His own
mouth, and said to me: ' Come hither,
25 Enoch, and hear my word.' And one of the holy ones came to me and waked
me, and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face
downwards.

Chapter 15
1 And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Fear not, Enoch,
thou righteous
2 man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice. And go,
say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: "You
should intercede" for men, and not men
3 for you: Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with
women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to
yourselves wives, and done like the children
4 of earth, and begotten Nephilim (as your) sons? And though ye were holy,
spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of
women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children
of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die
5 and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate
them, and beget

400
 6 children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But
you were formerly
7 spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world.
And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of
the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.
8 And now, the Nephilim, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be
called evil spirits upon
9 the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded
from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is
their beginning and primal origin;
10 they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for
the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the
earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.]
11 And the spirits of the Nephilim afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and
work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but
nevertheless
12 hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against
the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from
them.

Chapter 16
1 From the days of the slaughter and destruction and death of the Nephilim,
from the souls of whose flesh the spirits, having gone forth, shall destroy without
incurring judgement -thus shall they destroy until the day of the consummation,
the great judgement in which the age shall be
2 consummated, over the Watchers and the godless, yea, shall be wholly
consummated." And now as to the Watchers who have sent thee to intercede for
them, who had been aforetime in heaven, say to them:
3 "You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to
you, and you knew worthless ones, and these in the hardness of your hearts you
have made known to the women, and through these mysteries women and men
work much evil on earth."
4 Say to them therefore: " You have no peace."'

Chapter 17
1 And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were
like flaming fire,
2 and, when they wished, they appeared as men. And they brought me to the
place of darkness, and to a mountain the point of whose summit reached to
heaven.
3 And I saw the places of the luminaries and the treasuries of the stars and of the
thunder and in the uttermost depths, where were
4 a fiery bow and arrows and their quiver, and a fiery sword and all the
lightnings. And they took
5 me to the living waters, and to the fire of the west, which receives every setting

401
 of the sun. And I came to a river of fire in which the fire flows like water and
discharges itself into the great sea towards
6 the west. I saw the great rivers and came to the great river and to the great
darkness, and went
7 to the place where no flesh walks. I saw the mountains of the darkness of winter
and the place
8 whence all the waters of the deep flow. I saw the mouths of all the rivers of the
earth and the mouth of the deep.

Chapter 18
1 I saw the treasuries of all the winds: I saw how He had furnished with them
the whole creation
2 and the firm foundations of the earth. And I saw the corner-stone of the earth: I
saw the four
3 winds which bear [the earth and] the firmament of the heaven. And I saw how
the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven, and have their station between heaven
and earth: these are the pillars
4 of the heaven. I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the
circumference of the sun and
5 all the stars to their setting. I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I
saw the paths
6 of the angels. I saw at the end of the earth the firmament of the heaven above.
And I proceeded and saw a place which burns day and night, where there are
seven mountains of magnificent stones,
7 three towards the east, and three towards the south. And as for those towards
the east, was of coloured stone, and one of pearl, and one of jacinth, and those
towards the south of red stone.
8 But the middle one reached to heaven like the throne of God, of alabaster, and
the summit of the
9,10 throne was of sapphire. And I saw a flaming fire. And beyond these
mountains Is a region the end of the great earth: there the heavens were
completed.
11 And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw
columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards
12 the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which
had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it:
there was no water upon it, and no
13 birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great
burning mountains,
14 and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the
end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of
heaven.
15And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the
commandment of the Lord in the beginning of
16 their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. And He
was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be

402
 consummated (even) for ten thousand years.'

Chapter 19
1 And Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected
themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are
defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods,
(here shall they stand,) till the day of the great judgement in
2 which they shall be judged till they are made an end of. And the women also of
the angels who
3 went astray shall become sirens.' And I, Enoch, alone saw the vision, the ends
of all things: and no man shall see as I have seen.

Chapter 20
1,2 And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. Uriel, one of the
holy angels, who is
3 over the world and over Tartarus. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over
the spirits of men.
4,5 Raguel, one of the holy angels who takes vengeance on the world of the
luminaries. Michael, one
6 of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and over
chaos. Saraqael,
7 one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. Gabriel,
one of the holy
8 angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents and the Cherubim. Remiel, one
of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise.

Chapter 21
1,2 And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something
horrible: I saw neither
3 a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible.
And there I saw
4 seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and
burning with fire. Then
5 I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast
in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was
chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why
6 dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are of the number of
the stars of heaven, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and
are bound here till ten thousand years,
7 the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' And from thence I went to
another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible
thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as
the abyss, being full of great descending columns of
8 fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. Then I

403
 said: 'How
9 fearful is the place and how terrible to look upon!' Then Uriel answered me,
one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto me: 'Enoch, why hast thou
such fear and affright?' And
10 I answered: 'Because of this fearful place, and because of the spectacle of the
pain.' And he said unto me: 'This place is the prison of the angels, and here they
will be imprisoned for ever.'

Chapter 22
1 And thence I went to another place, and he mountain [and] of hard rock.
2 And there was in it four hollow places, deep and wide and very smooth. How
smooth are the hollow places and deep and dark to look at.
3 Then Raphael answered, one of the holy angels who was with me, and said unto
me: 'These hollow places have been created for this very purpose, that the spirits
of the souls of the dead should
4 assemble therein, yea that all the souls of the children of men should assemble
here. And these places have been made to receive them till the day of their
judgement and till their appointed period [till the period appointed], till the great
judgement (comes) upon them.' I saw (the spirit of) a dead man making suit,
5 and his voice went forth to heaven and made suit. And I asked Raphael the
angel who was
6 with me, and I said unto him: 'This spirit which maketh suit, whose is it, whose
voice goeth forth and maketh suit to heaven ?'
7 And he answered me saying: 'This is the spirit which went forth from Abel,
whom his brother Cain slew, and he makes his suit against him till his seed is
destroyed from the face of the earth, and his seed is annihilated from amongst
the seed of men.'
8 The I asked regarding it, and regarding all the hollow places: 'Why is one
separated from the other?'
9 And he answered me and said unto me: 'These three have been made that the
spirits of the dead might be separated. And such a division has been make (for)
the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of
10 water. And such has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in
the earth and judgement has not been executed on them in their
11 lifetime. Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day
of judgement and punishment and torment of those who curse for ever and
retribution for their spirits. There
12 He shall bind them for ever. And such a division has been made for the spirits
of those who make their suit, who make disclosures concerning their destruction,
when they were slain in the days
13 of the sinners. Such has been made for the spirits of men who were not
righteous but sinners, who were complete in transgression, and of the
transgressors they shall be companions: but their spirits shall not be slain in the
day of judgement nor shall they be raised from thence.'
14 The I blessed the Lord of glory and said: 'Blessed be my Lord, the Lord of
righteousness, who ruleth for ever.'

404
 Chapter 23
1,2 From thence I went to another place to the west of the ends of the earth.
And I saw a burning
3 fire which ran without resting, and paused not from its course day or night but
(ran) regularly. And
4 I asked saying: 'What is this which rests not?' Then Raguel, one of the holy
angels who was with me, answered me and said unto me: 'This course of fire
which thou hast seen is the fire in the west which persecutes all the luminaries of
heaven.'

Chapter 24
1 And from thence I went to another place of the earth, and he showed me a
mountain range of
2 fire which burnt day and night. And I went beyond it and saw seven
magnificent mountains all differing each from the other, and the stones (thereof)
were magnificent and beautiful, magnificent as a whole, of glorious appearance
and fair exterior: three towards the east, one founded on the other, and three
towards the south, one upon the other, and deep rough ravines, no one of which
3 joined with any other. And the seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and
it excelled them
4 in height, resembling the seat of a throne: and fragrant trees encircled the
throne. And amongst them was a tree such as I had never yet smelt, neither was
any amongst them nor were others like it: it had a fragrance beyond all fragrance,
and its leaves and blooms and wood wither not for ever:
5 and its fruit is beautiful, and its fruit n resembles the dates of a palm. Then I
said: 'How beautiful is this tree, and fragrant, and its leaves are fair, and its
blooms very delightful in appearance.'
6 Then answered Michael, one of the holy and honoured angels who was with
me, and was their leader.

Chapter 25
1 And he said unto me: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance
of the tree,
2 and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?' Then I answered him saying: 'I wish
to
3 know about everything, but especially about this tree.' And he answered saying:
'This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of
God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal
King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit
4 the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to
touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring
(everything) to its consummation
5 for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for
food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the

405
 Lord, the Eternal King.
6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad,
And into the holy place shall they enter;
And its fragrance shall be in their bones,
And they shall live a long life on earth,
Such as thy fathers lived: And in their days shall no sorrow or plague
Or torment or calamity touch them.'
7 Then blessed I the God of Glory, the Eternal King, who hath prepared such
things for the righteous, and hath created them and promised to give to them.

Chapter 26
1 And I went from thence to the middle of the earth, and I saw a blessed place
in which there were
2 trees with branches abiding and blooming [of a dismembered tree]. And there I
saw a holy mountain,
3 and underneath the mountain to the east there was a stream and it flowed
towards the south. And I saw towards the east another mountain higher than
this, and between them a deep and narrow
4 ravine: in it also ran a stream underneath the mountain. And to the west
thereof there was another mountain, lower than the former and of small
elevation, and a ravine deep and dry between them: and another deep and dry
ravine was at the extremities of the three mountains.
5 And all the ravines were deep rand narrow, (being formed) of hard rock, and
trees were not planted upon
6 them. And I marveled at the rocks, and I marveled at the ravine, yea, I
marveled very much.

Chapter 27
1 Then said I: 'For what object is this blessed land, which is entirely filled with
trees, and this
2 accursed valley between?' Then Uriel, one of the holy angels who was with me,
answered and said: 'This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever:
Here shall all the accursed be gathered together who utter with their lips against
the Lord unseemly words and of His glory speak hard things. Here shall they be
gathered together, and here
3 shall be their place of judgement. In the last days there shall be upon them the
spectacle of righteous judgement in the presence of the righteous for ever: here
shall the merciful bless the Lord of glory, the Eternal King.
4 In the days of judgement over the former, they shall bless Him for the mercy in
accordance with
5 which He has assigned them (their lot).' Then I blessed the Lord of Glory and
set forth His glory and lauded Him gloriously.

Chapter 28

406
 1 And thence I went towards the east, into the midst of the mountain range of
the desert, and
2 I saw a wilderness and it was solitary, full of trees and plants. And water
gushed forth from
3 above. Rushing like a copious watercourse [which flowed] towards the north-
west it caused clouds and dew to ascend on every side.

Chapter 29
1 And thence I went to another place in the desert, and approached to the east
of this mountain range.
2 And there I saw aromatic trees exhaling the fragrance of frankincense and
myrrh, and the trees also were similar to the almond tree.

Chapter 30
1,2 And beyond these, I went afar to the east, and I saw another place, a valley
(full) of water. And
3 therein there was a tree, the colour (?) of fragrant trees such as the mastic. And
on the sides of those valleys I saw fragrant cinnamon. And beyond these I
proceeded to the east.

Chapter 31
1 And I saw other mountains, and amongst them were groves of trees, and
there flowed forth from
2 them nectar, which is named sarara and galbanum. And beyond these
mountains I saw another mountain to the east of the ends of the earth, whereon
were aloe-trees, and all the trees were full
3 of stacte, being like almond-trees. And when one burnt it, it smelt sweeter than
any fragrant odour.

Chapter 32
1 And after these fragrant odours, as I looked towards the north over the
mountains I saw seven mountains full of choice nard and fragrant trees and
cinnamon and pepper.
2 And thence I went over the summits of all these mountains, far towards the
east of the earth, and passed above the Erythraean sea and went far from it, and
passed over the angel Zotiel. And I came to the Garden of Righteousness,
3 I and from afar off trees more numerous than I these trees and great-two trees
there, very great, beautiful, and glorious, and magnificent, and the tree of
knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat and know great wisdom.
4 That tree is in height like the fir, and its leaves are like (those of) the Carob
tree: and its fruit
5 is like the clusters of the vine, very beautiful: and the fragrance of the tree
penetrates afar. Then

407
 6 I said: 'How beautiful is the tree, and how attractive is its look!' Then
Raphael the holy angel, who was with me, answered me and said: 'This is the tree
of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were
before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and
they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden.'

Chapter 33
1 And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great beasts,
and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing in appearance
and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other. And to the east of those
beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the heaven
2 rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the stars of heaven
come forth, and
3 I counted the portals out of which they proceed, and wrote down all their
outlets, of each individual star by itself, according to their number and their
names, their courses and their positions, and their
4 times and their months, as Uriel the holy angel who was with me showed me.
He showed all things to me and wrote them down for me: also their names he
wrote for me, and their laws and their companies.

Chapter 34
1 And from thence I went towards the north to the ends of the earth, and there
I saw a great and
2 glorious device at the ends of the whole earth. And here I saw three portals of
heaven open in the heaven: through each of them proceed north winds: when
they blow there is cold, hail, frost,
3 snow, dew, and rain. And out of one portal they blow for good: but when they
blow through the other two portals, it is with violence and affliction on the earth,
and they blow with violence.

Chapter 35
1 And from thence I went towards the west to the ends of the earth, and saw
there three portals of the heaven open such as I had seen in the east, the same
number of portals, and the same number of outlets.

Chapter 36
1 And from thence I went to the south to the ends of the earth, and saw there
three open portals
2 of the heaven: and thence there come dew, rain, and wind. And from thence I
went to the east to the ends of the heaven, and saw here the three eastern portals
of heaven open and small portals
3 above them. Through each of these small portals pass the stars of heaven and
run their course to the west on the path which is shown to them. And as often as I

408
 saw I blessed always the Lord of Glory, and I continued to bless the Lord of
Glory who has wrought great and glorious wonders, to show the greatness of His
work to the angels and to spirits and to men, that they might praise His work and
all His creation: that they might see the work of His might and praise the great
work of His hands and bless Him for ever.

409
 NOTES AND REFERENCES
PREFACE

[1] Watcher (Aramaic, Theodotian trans: ir; from the verb ur, "to watch"; Heb. er,
"being watchful"; Gk.egre´goroi; Slav transliteration, Grigori,] "Watchers",
"those who are awake"; Chaldean, "guard", "watcher" is a term used in
connection with biblical angels. Watcher occurs in both plural and singular forms
in the Book of Daniel (2nd century BC), where reference is made to their
holiness. The apocryphal Books of Enoch (1st and 2nd centuries BC) refer to both
good and bad Watchers, with a primary focus on the rebellious ones.
[2] There are many instances recorded in the Bible that angels took on human
form
[3] Samyaza (Semihazah, Shemyazaz, Sêmîazâz, Semjâzâ, Samjâzâ, Shemyaza,
and Shemhazai) is a fallen angel of apocryphal Jewish and Christian tradition
that ranked in the heavenly hierarchy as one of the Grigori (meaning "Watchers"
in Greek). The name 'Shemyaza[z]' means 'infamous rebellion', the combination
of 'shem' [meaning 'name' or 'fame' {whether positive or negative}] +
'azaz' [which means 'rebellion' or 'arrogance' as a negative particle]. In the Book
of Enoch he is portrayed as the leader of a band of angels called the Watchers
that are consumed with lust for mortal women and become Fallen Angels.
[4] In the Bible, Jared was the sixth link in the ten pre-flood generations between
Adam and Noah; he was the son of Mahalaleel and the father of Enoch.
[5] The Transfiguration of Jesus is an episode in the New Testament narrative in
which Jesus is transfigured (or metamorphosed) and becomes radiant upon a
mountain. The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36)
describe it, and 2 Peter 1:16-18 refers to it.
[6] Dead Sea Scrolls- Book of Giants: 1Q23; 4Q531.
[7] Genesis 6:4 (NIV) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also
afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had
children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Chapter 1 - STRANGE BONES DISCOVERED

[1] Fuhlrott J C(1859) Verh naturhist Ver preuss Rheinl 16:131-153.

[2] Ibid;
[3] Schaaffhausen H, Der Neanderthaler Fund (Marcus, Bonn, Germany 1888).

410
Chapter 2 - THE OPENING OF PANDORA'S BOX

[1] Paul Rincon, Dinosaur extinction link to crater confirmed, BBC News, 4
March 2010
[2] Several contemporary sources indicate that belief in species fixity was
dominant at this time. In addition to Darwin's own comments in On the Origin of
Species, Asa Gray described fixity as the "ordinary and generally received view"
in the March 1860 issue of the American Journal of Science and Arts. The ninth
edition of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (1853) argues for fixity, as does
William Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences (1858). The famed American
scientist Louis Agassiz, as well as Scottish engineer Fleeming Jenkin, argued
against Darwin from a fixist position.
[3] Carolus Linnaeus, The Fundamenta Botanica, No. 157 (1736)
[4] "Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands
of man, apply in nature? I think we shall see that it can act most effectually."
Origin of Species, Natural Selection Chapter 4
[5] Sulloway, Frank J. (2006), "Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design", in
Brockman, John, Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design
Movement, New York: Vintage, pp. 107-126
[6] Darwin, Charles (1958) Barlow, Nora. ed. The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored. Edited and with
appendix and notes by his granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins.
[7] Browne, Janet (1995). Charles Darwin: A Biography, Vol. 1 - Voyaging, p 499.
Knopf, New York.

Chapter 3 - THE RETURN OF THE NEPHILIM

[1] The Origins of Enochic Judaism (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini; Turin: Zamorani,
2002)
[2] The Book of Jubilees (Hebrew: Sepher hayYobelim), sometimes called Lesser
Genesis (Leptogenesis), is an ancient Jewish religious work, considered one of
the pseudepigrapha by Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox
Churches. Jubilees is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as
well as Jews in Ethiopia, where it is known as the Book of Division (Ge'ez:
Mets'hafe Kufale). It was well known to Early Christians, as evidenced by the
writings of Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of
Alexandria, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius of Alexandria, John Malalas, George
Syncellus, and George Kedrenos. It was so thoroughly suppressed in the 4th
century that no complete Hebrew, Greek or Latin version has survived. There is
conjecture among western biblical scholars that Jubilees may be a rework of
material found in the canonical books of Genesis and Exodus
[3] Robert Henry Charles (1855-1931) was an English biblical scholar and
theologian. He is known particularly for English translations of apocryphal and
pseudepigraphal works, and editions including Jubilees (1895), the Book of
Enoch (1906), and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908) which have

411
 been widely used. He was educated at the Belfast Academy, Queen's College,
Belfast and Trinity College, Dublin. He gained a D.D. and became Professor of
Biblical Greek at Trinity College. He also became archdeacon of Westminster in
1919, serving until his death in 1931.
[4] R H Charles, "The Book of Enoch" (1906)
[5] Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation,
(1992) p. 23
[6] Apocalyptic Literature" (column 220), Encyclopedia Biblica
[7] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament
commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006). 76.
[8] Tertullian. On the Apparel of Women 1:3
[9] The Catholic Encyclopedia, St Athanasius
[10] F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1974)
[11] Stephen Quayle, Aliens & Fallen Angels: The Sexual Corruption of the
Human Race [12] Wilken, Robert L. (2003). The Spirit of Early Christian
Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 291. ISBN 0-300-10598-3.
[13] Augustine, "City of God"
[14] The Catholic Encyclopedia "Advent", on Heresy
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)
[15] Schmidt, Book of Enoch, p. 51.
[16] Ge'ez - an ancient South Semitic language that originated in the northern
region of Ethiopia
[17] McClintock, "Enoch, Book of," 3:225.
[18] See my trilogy "The Answer to All There Is" for a full understanding of this
statement
. [19] E. Isaac "1 Enoch, a new Translation and Introduction in ed. James
Charlesworth The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" Vol 1 ISBN 0-385-09630-5
(1983))
[20] Margaret Barker, "The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and its Influence
on Christianity" ISBN 1420930451

Chapter 4 - THE APEMAN COMETH

[1] (Bewkes, et al., 1940, p. 549).

[2] Babu G. Ranganathan, "Neanderthals Were Fully Human!" Pravda
05/11/2010
[3] Bynum W.F. (1984). "Charles Lyell's Antiquity of Man and its critics". J. Hist
Biol 17 (2): 153-187.
[4] Lartet, L.., 1868 Mémoire sur une sépulture des anciens troglodytes de
Périgord, Annales des sciences naturelles II Zoologie, 5ème Série, X, 1868, p. 141,
fig. 6
[5] "Homo erectus (meaning "upright man," from the Latin erigere, "to put up,
set upright") is an extinct species of hominid that lived from the end of the
Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, with the earliest first fossil evidence
dating to around 1.8 million years ago and the most recent to around 300,000

412
 years ago. The species originated in Africa and spread as far as Spain, Georgia,
India, China and Java." Homo Erectus -Wikipedia.
[6] Herbet Wendt, "From Ape to Adam", p98 1971)
[7] H.G. Wells (1866-1946). A Short History of the World. 1922.
. [8] Manchester Guardian November 1912
[9] Malcolm Muggeridge, "The End of Christendom", Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1980, p. 59
[10] Stephen Jay Gould, "Smith Woodward's Folly," New Scientist, 5 April 1979,
p. 44
[11] Smith, G.E., Hesperopithecus: the ape-man of the western world, The
Illustrated London News, p. 944, 24 June 1922.
[12] megalomaniac: A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional
fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence
[13] In the MonsterQuest episode entitled "Stalin's Ape Man" 2005, The
MonsterQuest team went to Russia to find out the truth behind these reports.
Russian Academy of Science Historian Kirill Rossiianov has researched the
Academy documents for the history of these experiments. Rossiianov found
documentation that Stalin approved funding for Ilya Ivanov's experiment to
create an ape-man hybrid.
[14] The Scotsman, "Stalin's half-man, half-ape super-warriors" 20 December
2005. Also, Stephanie Pain, "Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal",
New Scientist 23 August 2008
[15] MonsterQuest episode entitled "Stalin's Ape Man" 2005
[16] Ibid;
[17] PEKING MAN RANKED AS OLDEST HUMAN; Scientists Call Fossil Nearest
Approach to Missing Link Yet Discovered. LIVED A MILLION YEARS AGO
Remains Regarded as Important Proof That Human Life Evolved From Lower
Form. Peking Man Sought For. Bride Brought Him Food. Dated a Million Years
Back. Tells Theory of Creation.
By HALLETT ABEND. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF THE NEW YORK
TIMES PEKING, July 22.
[18] Lee Berger, Are the Lost Peking Man Fossils Buried Under a Parking Lot in
China? National Geographic 22nd March 2012, Posted by Amy Bucci of NG Staff
in Explorers Journal on March 22, 2012

Chapter 5 - OUT OF AFRICA

[1] Nature 129, 715-715 (14 May 1932)

[2] A. Tindell Hopwood, "The Age of "Oldoway Man." (Published by permission
of the Trustees of the British Museum)
[3] London Times, December 10, 1996
[4] Cela-Conde & Ayala, 158; Morrell, 183-184.
[5] Dente, Jenny Mary Douglas Nicol Leakey 1913-1996
[6] Richard Leakey, "New Skull Changes our Pedigree and Lengthens Our Past",
Science News 1118, 1972 vol 102, p324
[7] Richard Leakey, "Skull 1470", National Geographic, June 1973, p819

413
 [8] Lauren E. Bohn, "Q&A: 'Lucy' Discoverer Donald C. Johanson" 4th March
2009, Time Magazine
[9] Ibid;
[10] John Reader, "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 28th
March 1981
[11] Claud A Bramblett, "The Discovery of the Fossil Record", University of Texas
lecture, 2002
[12] "Turkana Boy Study Finds No Sign Of Bone Disorder, But Debate Over
Proto-Human's Skeleton Continues", LifeScience quoting the American Journal
of Physical Anthropology, March 2013
[13] Donald Johnson, Blake Edgar, "From Lucy to Language2, p.173
[14] "Skull fossil may redefine evolutionary tree", Associated Press, 22nd March
2001
[15] Henry Gee, "New hominid skull", Nature 410, 433 - 440 2001
[16] Tim White, "Early Hominids--Diversity or Distortion?", Science 28th March
2003: Vol. 299 no. 5615 pp.
[17] Science, 2nd October 2009 A presentation of "11 papers, authored by a
diverse international team, describing an early hominid species, Ardipithecus
ramidus, and its environment"
[18] Jamie Shreeve, "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found", National
Geographic Magazine, 1sts October 2009
[19] Ibid;
[20] Kate Wong, "Rival Anthropologists Donald Johanson and Richard Leakey
Reunite after 30-Year Rift", Scientific American, 7th May, 2011

Chapter 6 - THE APEMEN THAT NEVER WERE

[1] [Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of
Science, Oxford University], "Put Your Money on Evolution", Review of
Johanson D. & Edey M.A., "Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution", in New
York Times, April 9, 1989
[2] Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited,
Barcelona, 1982, p. 43 quoting David Pilbeam
[3] Robert Locke, "Family Fights" Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, p.
36-39.
[4] Henry Gee, "Craniums with Clout," Nature, Vol. 478, 6 October 2011, p. 34.
[5] David Pilbeam, American Scientist, Vol. 66, May-June, 1978, p. 379
[6] "Early Homo and Associated Artifacts from Asia," Nature, Vol. 378, 16
November 1995, pp. 275-278.
[7] The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia," Nature, Vol. 459, 18 June 2009, pp.
910-911.]
[8] Review by Creighton Gabel, Boston University as appeared in American
Anthropologist Volume 68, Issue 6, 1966
[9] Mary C. Stiner, Steven L. Kuhn, "Early Man: a tribute to the late career of F.
Clark Howell" Journal of Human Evolution, 55 (2008) 758-760
[10] Review by Creighton Gabel, Boston University as appeared in American

414
 Anthropologist Volume 68, Issue 6, 1966
[11] 'Million-Dollar' Man-Ape's Tooth Shattered; Museum's Prize Falls from X-
Ray Man's Hand, The New York Times, February 19 1925 p.21
[12] New York Times, March 22 1923 p.30 [13] John Reader, Missing Links, Book
Club Associates/William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, London, p. 110, 1981.
[14] Lowell Dingus, Mark Norell, "Barnum Brown: The Man Who Discovered
Tyrannosaurus Rex", 2010
[15] Ibid;
[16] Ibid;
[17] Gregory, W.K. (1927). "Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man".
Science 66 Volume 66, Issue 1720, pp. 579-581.
[18] Time Magazine, 27th February, 1928
[19] New York Times, February 20, 1928, pp. 1, 6
[20] Straton, John Roach, 1928. "Dr. Straton offers a 'pig-tooth' debate," The
New York Times, Feb. 27, p. 19
[21] "Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man", talkorigins.org
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html)
[22] Daily Princetonian 6 May 1930, Volume 55, Number 64, p6 [23] Kate
Bartlett, "Piltdown Man: Britain's Greatest Hoax", 17th February 2011, BBC News
[24] Jonathan Amos, "Piltdown Man: A hoaxer still pursued", 17 December 2012,
, BBC News
[25] Natural History, August 1982
[26] New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
[27] Ibid;
[28] "Prominent Hominid Fossils", talkorigins.org
[29] List of human evolution fossils, Wikipedia
[30] Francisco J. Ayala, Am I a Monkey? Six Big Questions about Evolution,
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD, 2010. Science, vol. 339, no. 6115 (13 Dec
2012), pg. 46-48
[31] Palmer, D., ed. (1999). The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs
and Prehistoric Animals. London: Marshall Editions. pp. 291. ISBN 1-84028-152-
9.
[32] Prehistoric Wild Life, (http://www.prehistoric-
wildlife.com/species/p/proconsul.html)
[33] Dryopithecus, Encyclopedia Britannica
[34] Erin Wayman, "Human Evolution's Cookie Monster, Oreopithecus",
Smithstonian 5th December, 2011
[35] Oreopithecus, Encyclopedia Britannica
[36] Robert B. Eckhardt from Penn. State University wrote in, "APES" in
Scientific American, Vol.226, p.101
[37] Ramapithecus, Encyclopedia Britannica
[38] Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-
62.
[39] Matt Cartmill ,"One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology," American
Scientist, Vol. 74, July-August 1986, p. 417.
[40] Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy, Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of
humans, The Jerusalem Post, 16 April 2007.

415
 [41] J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982])
[42] [43] Ken Harding,
evolution.mbdojo.com/you_figure_it_out.htm [44] Gary Parker, Building Blocks
in Science
[45] D'Lynn Waldron, http://www.dlwaldron.com/bonobos.html
[46] The Smithstonian Museum of Natural History under the heading "Genetics",
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics
[47] Time Magazine, 7 November, 1979, pp. 68-69). [48] Randolph E. Schmid,
"Study: Ancient 'Nutcracker Man' really ate grass", Associated Press as published
in USA Today, 03/05/2011
[49] Zinj and the Leakeys, Archaeology Magazine, Interview with Richard Leakey
talking about his family and their discoveries, 3rd August, 2009
(http://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/leakey/) [50] Dente, Jenny
Mary Douglas Nicol Leakey 1913-1996

Chapter 7 - ANCESTORS, APES OR HUMANS?

[1] Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York,
1970, pp. 75-94. 187 Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in
Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p.
389.
[2] Ramapithecus, Encyclopedia Britannica
[3] Alemseged, Zeresenay; et al. (2006). "A juvenile early hominin skeleton from
Dikika, Ethiopia". Nature 443 (7109): 296-301
[4] Ibid;
[5] Ibid;
[6] Ibid;
[7] Charles Oxnard, The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the
Primates, p332
[8] BBC News, 6th April, 2005
[9] "Toumai skull: is it man's earliest ancestor?", Natural History Museum News,
8th April 2005. The findings are published in Nature (4th April 2005).
[10] NPR 4th February, 2013, See also Nature (11 July 2002),
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/toumai/index.html
[11] Ann Gibbons, The First Human, Doubleday, 2006, p. 218)
[12] "Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid", Nature, 6 April 2005,
doi:10.1038/news050404-6
[13] Ann Arbor, "Earliest hominid: Not a hominid at all?" 26th June, 2006,
University of Michigan online
[14] "Homo Erectus", Smithstonian Museum of Natural History, 2010
[15] Jim Foley, "Creationist Arguments: Java Man"
[16] Science, new series, vol. 57, June 15, 1923, supplement 8
[17] Science, new series, vol. 58, Aug. 17, 1923, supplement 8.
[18] Science, new series, vol. 75, June 10, 1932, supplement 11
[19] 'Die Pithecanthropus-Schichen auf Java'. A copy of the report in the
Volkschulla Library in Aachen, West Germany. (1907)

416
 [20] Ibid;
[21] Keith, A, 'The problem of Pithecanthropus', Nature, 87, p49-50 (13 July
1911)
[22] Robert F. Heizer, ed., Man's Discovery of His Past (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962), 138]
[23] "Peking Man", Encyclopedia Brittanica
[24] Paul Rincon, "Peking Man' older than thought" BBC News 11 March 2009
[25] Ibid;
[26] Franze Weidenreich, "Some problems dealing with ancient man", American
Anthropologist, July-September 1940, Vol 42 No 3
[27] The Daily Telegraph of London (Dec 16 1929, p.11) and the New York Times
(Dec 16 1929), The Southeast Missourian - Dec 16, 1929, New York Evening Post,
Dec 16, 1929, The Tuscaloosa News - Dec 16, 1929
[28] Ibid;
[29] Ibid;
[30] Jim Foley, "Creationist Arguments: The Lost Peking Man Skeleton",
TalkOrigins (Boule 1929, p.456, Foley's translation) (Boule 1929, p.456, my
translation) Boule M. (1929): Le Sinanthropus. L'Anthropologie, 39:455-60.
[31] Ibid; (Boule 1929, p.456, Foley's translation) Boule M. (1929): Le
Sinanthropus. L'Anthropologie, 39:455-60.
[32] Ibid; (Black, quoted in Boule 1929, p.458)
[33] Brace, C. L. and Montagu, A., 1977. Human Evolution, Second Edition,
Chicago University Press, pp. 204-205.
[34] G. Philip Rightmire, "The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative
Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Species" 1990
[35] Ibid;
[36] Turkana Boy: A 1.5-Million-year-old Skeleton, Bahn_Turkana_Boy.pdf,
planet.uwc.ac.za
[37] Ibid;
[38] Ibid;
[39] Ibid;
[40] Ibid;
[41] archaeologyinfo.com
[42] Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind, London: Sphere Books, 1981, p.
62.
[43] Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, "African fossils paint chaotic picture of
human evolution", USA Today, 8th August 2007. ( Referring to new research by
famed paleonoloigst Maeve Leakey and quoting co-author of the study Fred
Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London)
He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State
University
[44] Unveiling Man' Origins: Ten Decades of Thought about Human Evolution
By L. S. Louis Seymour Bazett Leakey, Vanne Morris Goodall
[45] Ibid;
[46] C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Anton, H. P. Schwarcz, G. H. Curtis, A.
Suprijo, Widiasmoro, "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity
with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," Science 274 (13 December 1996) p. 1871.

417
 [47] Woodward, A. A 1921. A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa.
Nature, 108: 371-372.
[48] G. Elliot Smith, THE RHODESIAN SKULL, British Medical Journal, 1922
February 4; 1(3188): 197-198
[49] HST 100 Prehistoric Man, University of Artarica
[50] "African fossils paint chaotic picture of human evolution", USA Today,

Chapter 8 - SORTING OUT THE MESS

[1] Robert Sanders, "Famed paleoanthropologist Clark Howell has died", 13th
March 2007, Media Relations University of California, Berkley
[2] William Howells, "Introduction", Early Man by Time-Life books, 1970
[3] Philip L. Stein, Bruce M. Rowe, "Physical Anthropology", McGraw-Hill
Education 1994
[4] David Perlman, San Francisco Chronicle ,July 12, 2001
[5] Ibid;
[6] Greg Kirby, Senior Lecturer at Flinders University in Population Biology,
from a lecture to the Biology Teachers Association in South Australia, 1976.
[7] J. William Schopf, "Evolution: Facts and Fallacies", Academic Press, 1998 [8]
David R. Begun, "Planet of the Apes, Scientific American, August, 2003
[9] Ibid;
[10] Gould, Stephen Jay (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the
Nature of History, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp 30-36.
[11] Ian Tattersall, "Expert Interview Transcripts", Unit 9 Evolution,
Rediscovering Biology
[12] "A family tree of human evolution ", BBC
[13] The Adaptable Human, Posted on the NOVA website. Interview conducted
August 9-11, 2008 by Graham Townsley, producer of "Becoming Human," and
edited by Peter Tyson, editor in chief of NOVA Online
[14] http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit' (Smithstonian Museum Website)
[15] Julia M. Klein, "Our Species Rediscovers Its Cousins", The Wall Street
Journal, 11th May 2010
[16] John Hawks, "Review of the Smithsonian's new Human Origins Hall" 13th
May, 2010
[17] Ian Tattersall, "Expert Interview Transcripts", Unit 9 Evolution,
Rediscovering Biology
[18] Ibid;
[19] Robert Sanders, "Ethiopian desert yields oldest hominid skeleton",
University of California, Berkeley, 01 October 2009
[20] How did humans evolve? University of California, Berkeley Evosite website.
[21] "Understanding Climate's Influence on Human Evolution", The National
Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Earth System Context for Hominin
Evolution: Robert M. Hamilton (Chair), National Research Council (Retired);
Berhane Asfaw, Rift Valley Research Service; Gail M. Ashley, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, New Brunswick; Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah;
Andrew S. Cohen, University of Arizona; Peter B. deMenocal, Lamont-Doherty

418
 Earth Observatory of Columbia University; Andrew P. Hill, Yale University;
Thomas C. Johnson, University of Minnesota, Duluth; John E. Kutzbach,
University of Wisconsin-Madison; Richard Potts, Smithsonian Institution; Kaye
E. Reed, Arizona State University, Tempe (resigned May 2009); Alan R. Rogers,
University of Utah; Alan C. Walker, Pennsylvania State University; David A.
Feary (Study Director), Nicholas D.Rogers (Research Associate).
[22] Miller, J.M.A. (2000), "Craniofacial variation in Homo habilis: an analysis
of the evidence for multiple species", American Journal of Physical Anthropology
112(1): p. 103-128.
[23] B. Wood & M. Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, Vol. 284:65-71, April
2, 1999
[24] Homo habilis, The Institute of Human Origins (IHO)
[25] Homo habilis, "Introduction", (archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis)
[26] Wolpoff, M.H., "Paleoanthropology2, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston,
p. iv, 1999. p. 358
[27] Tattersall, I. and Schwartz, J.H., "Extinct Humans", Westview Press, New
York, p. 111, 2001.
[28] Walker A.C. and Shipman P. "The wisdom of the bones: In search of human
origins", Random House Inc, New York; 1996.
[29] Timothy G. Bromage, "Craniofacial architectural constraints and their
importance for reconstructing the early Homo skull KNM-ER 1470" The Journal
of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry Volume 33, Number 1/2008
[30] Sandrine Prat, "Anatomical study of the skull of the Kenyan speciment KNM
ER 1805: A re-evaluation of its taxonomic allocation", Laboratory
paleoanthropology and prehistory, Collège de France, 2001
[31] Homo rudolfensis, Smithstonian website as seen on 26th February, 2013
[32] Walter W. Ferguson, "Reappraisal of the taxonomic status of the cranium
Stw 53 from the Plio/Pleistocene of Sterkfontein, in South Africa", Primates
January 1989, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 103-109
[33] Homo habilis, ([http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-habilis/)
[34] James Shreeve, "The Neandertal Enigma", William Morrow and Company
Inc., New York, 1995
[35] G. Elliot Smith, "The Search for Man's Ancestors", 1931
[36] Mounier A, Marchal F, Condemi S, "Is Homo heidelbergensis a distinct
species?", J Hum Evol. 2009 Mar;56(3):219-46. Epub 2009 Feb 27
[37] Katerina Harvati, "100 years of Homo heidelbergensis - life and times of a
controversial taxon" Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Department of Human Evolution
[38] G. Philip Rightmire, "Human Evolution in the Middle Pleistocene: The Role
of Homo heidelbergensis", Evolutionary Anthropology. See also Vandermeersch
B (1985) "The origin of the Neandertals". In Delson E (ed), Ancestors: TheHard
Evidence, pp 306-309. New York: Alan R.Liss. - Hublin J-J, Tillier A-M (1991)
"L'Homo sapiens en Europe occidentale: Gradualisme et rupture." In Hublin J-J,
Tillier A-M (eds), "Aux Origines d'Homo Sapiens", pp 291-327. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France. - Arsuaga JL, Marti´nez I, Gracia A, Carretero JM,
Carbonell E (1993) "Three new human skulls from the Sima de los Huesos
Middle Pleistocene site in Sierra de Atapuerca", Spain. Nature 362: 534-537. -

419
 Condemi S (1996) "Does the human fossil specimen from Reilingen (Germany)
belong to the Homo erectus or to the Neanderthal lineage?" Anthropologie
34:69-78. - Hublin J-J (1996) The First Europeans. Archaeology 49:36-44.
[39] Juan Luis Arsuaga, "The Neanderthal's Necklace", 2001
[40] Robin McKie, "Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human
evolution by misdating bones", The Observer, Sunday 10 June 2012
[41] Ibid;
[42] David Rabanda, Geological Museum of Barcelona,
[43] Jon Schiller Phd, "Human Evolution: Neanderthals & Homosapiens", 2010
[44] Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 November 16; 107(46): 19726-19730.
[45] Juan Luis Arsuaga, "The Neanderthal's Necklace", 2001
[46] Ibid;

Chapter 9 - THE TRUTH ABOUT NEANDERTHALS

[1] Chapelle-aux-Saints, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

[2] A Short History of the World by H G Wells, (bartleby.com) Wells's two-
volume Outline of History, published in 1920, was the first general history
constructed on an evolutionary, sociological and anthropological basis. It was
immensely popular and set the basis for this Short History, which Wells created
"to meet the needs of the busy general reader, too driven to study the maps and
time charts of that Outline in detail, who wishes to refresh and repair his faded or
fragmentary conceptions of the great adventure of mankind."
[3] H G Wells, "The Neanderthaler and the Rhodesian Man", A Short History of
the World, 1920
[4] Hemant Roy Sri, "Comprehensive MCQs in Biology", Laxmi Publications (1
Dec 2005)
[5] Robert Foley, Robin Dunbar, "Beyond the Bones of Contention", New
Scientist 14 Oct 1989
[6] Charles DePaolo, C. 2000. Wells, Golding, and Auel: "Representing the
Neanderthal. Science Fiction" Studies. 27: 419-438.
[7] Monique Scott, "The Pleasures and Pitfalls of Teaching Human Evolution in
the Museum", Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:403-409 Springer Science+Business
Media, LLC 2010 http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12052-
010-0252-y
[8] Ibid;
[9] Hamilton, Anne (2005) "Popular Depictions of Neanderthals,"Totem: The
University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol.13: Iss. 1, Article 12
[10] Straus, william L. Jr. and AJ.E. Cave. "Paleontology and the Posture of
Neanderthal Man." Quarterly Review of Biology, 32:4:348, December, 1957.
[11] Ibid;
[12] "The old man of La Chapelle", Smithstonian Natural Museum of History
website
[13] B A Wood, "The 'Neanderthals' of the College of Surgeons", Annals of the
Royal College of Surgeons of England (I979) vol 6i
[14] Joe Alper, "Rethinking Neanderthals," Smithsonian magazine (June 2003)

420
 [15] Kyle Jarrard, "Neanderthals Getting a Colorful Upgrade", Science Huff
Post, 22nd April 2013
[16] Marc Kaufman, "Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits",
Washington Post, 30th April 2007
[17] R. Lynn, "The evolution of brain size and intelligence in man", Human
Evolution June 1990, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 241-244
[18] Ibid;
[19] Lieberman, Philip; Edmund S. Crelin, "On the Speech of Neanderthal Man".
Linguistic Inquiry 2 (2): 203-222. (Spring 1971)
[20] Baruch Arensburg, "A reappraisal of the anatomical basis for speech in
middle Paleolithic hominids", American Journal of Physiological Anthropology
83 (1990), pp. 137-146.
[21] Baruch Arensburg, "A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone", Nature 338,
758 - 760 (27 April 1989)
[22] Mason Inman, "Neandertals Had Same "Language Gene" as Modern
Humans", National Geographic News, 18th October, 2007
[23] Ibid;
[24] "Early Human Burials Varied Widely but Most Were Simple", Science Daily
21st February, 2013, University of Colorado Denver (2013, February 21).
[25] Jennifer Viegas, "Did Neanderthals believe in an afterlife?, Discovery News,
20th April, 2013
[26] Lee Glendinning, "Neanderthals: not stupid, just different", Guardian, 26th
August 2008
[27] BBC News, "Complexity' of Neanderthal tools", 26th August 2008
[28] Erik Trinkaus, "Hard Times Among the Neanderthals", Natural History, vol
87, December 1978, p. 10)

Chapter 10 - THE NEPHILIM WERE GIANTS. WRONG!

[1] Adam Clarke, "Nephilim", Adam Clarke's Commentary, Biblesoft 2006 Adam
Clarke (1760 or 1762 - 1832) was a British Methodist theologian and Biblical
scholar. He is chiefly remembered for writing a commentary on the Bible which
took him 40 years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological
resource for two centuries.
[2] Aaron J. Atsma, Theoi Greek Mythology, (http://www.theoi.com/)
[3] William Whiston, "The Antiquities of the Jews" 1.73
[4] High and Mighty "offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually
unwarranted power; "an autocratic person"; "autocratic behavior"; "a bossy way
of ordering others around"; "a rather aggressive and dominating character";
"managed the employees in an aloof magisterial way"; "a swaggering peremptory
manner", TheFreeDictionary by Farlex Rabbi Naftali Reich, "The Grasshopper
Syndrome", torah.org
[5] William Smith, "Gigantes", Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology.(1870)
a 3,700-page compendium of 19th century classical scholarship. [6] "Phlegraean
Fields." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. 2012. Encyclopedia.com. 20 Mar.

421
 2013

Chapter 11 - WHEN THE GLOVE FITS

[1] Chris Stringer, "The Hobbit who helped us find our origins", The Telegraph,
23rd April 2013
[2] The Aurignacian culture is an archaeological culture of the Upper
Palaeolithic, located in Europe and southwest Asia. It lasted broadly within the
period from ca. 45,000 to 35,000 years ago (about 37,000 to 27,000 years ago on
the uncalibrated radiocarbon timescale; between ca. 47,000 and 41,000 years
ago using the most recent calibration of the radiocarbon timescale. The name
originates from the type site of Aurignac in the Haute-Garonne area of France.
[3] Carl Whiting Bishop (Associate Curator, Freer Gallery of Art) with the
collaboration of Charles Greeley Abbot (Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution)
and Ales Hrdlicka (Curator, Division of Physical Anthropology, United States
National Museum ), "Man from the Furthest Past", Volume 7 of the Smithsonian
Scientific Series, 1930
[4] Herbet Wendt, "From Ape to Adam", 1971, p98 [5] Eugène Pittard, "Race and
History: An Ethnological Introduction to History", 1926, Kegan Paul Trench
Trubner & Co Ltd
[6] Clement Wood, "The Stone Age", Haldeman-Julius Co. (1923)
[7] Oram, Raymond F, Hummer, Paul J. & Smoot, Robert C. "Biology: Teacher's
Annotated Edition", Ohio: Bell & Howell, 1983. Talking about Neanderthals,
"Brain size was about equal to that of modern humans (about 1450 cm3)." See
also Milner, Richard. "Cranial Capacity." The Encyclopedia of Evolution:
Humanity's Search For Its Origins. New York: Holt, 1990: 98. ""Living humans
have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950 cc to 1800 cc, with the average
about 1400 cc."
[8] White, Tim D.; Asfaw, B.; DeGusta, D.; Gilbert, H.; Richards, G. D.; Suwa, G.;
Howell, F. C. (2003), "Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia",
Nature 423 (6491): 742-747
[9] Ibid;
[10] Hillary Mayell, "Oldest Human Fossils Identified", National Geographic
News, 16th February, 2005
[11] John G. Fleaglea, Zelalem Assefab, Francis H. Brownc, John J. Shead,
"Paleoanthropology of the Kibish Formation, southern Ethiopia: Introduction",
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 55, Issue 3, September 2008, Pages 360-
365
[12] Ibid;
[13] Hillary Mayell, "Oldest Human Fossils Identified", National Geographic
News, 16th February, 2005
[14] Ibid;
[15] "Skhul V", Smithstonian website, retrieved 24th
[16] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Jubilees", 1914 (Book of Jubilees 4:15)
[17] Alan Lenzi, "The Secret of the Gods and Society: Studies in the Origins,
Guarding, and Disclosure of Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and

422
 Biblical Israel," (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 2005), 162-63
[18] Erica Reiner, "The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages,"Orientelia 30 (1961):
10-11
[19] amhibious - having a dual or mixed nature[from Greek amphibios, literally:
having a double life, from amphi- + bios life], Free Dictionary
[20] John Jocelyn, "Meditations On the Signs of the Zodiac", Rudolph
Publications, 1970
[21] Lynn Hunt, "The Book That Changed Europe: Picart and Bernard's Religious
Ceremonies of the World", Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (March 31,
2010)
[22] Ray C. Stedman, "The Beginnings" ISBN 0-8499-2818-4, 1978
[23] Danny Vendramini, Them + Us, Kardoorair Press (26 Dec 2011)
[24] Erik Trinkaus, "Journal of Archaeological Science", Volume 39, Issue 12,
December 2012, Pages 3691-3693
[25] Jeanna Bryner, "Human Stabbed a Neanderthal, Evidence Suggests",
LiveScience, 21st July 2009. The study was published in the Journal of Human
Evolution
[26] Carl Zimmer, "Bones Give Peek Into the Lives of Neanderthals", New York
Times, 20th December 2010
[27] J. Mehy, "Did Cannibalism contribute to Neanderthal extinction?", Medical
Hypotheses, 2007
[28] ScienceDaily 5th October quoting from Science Magazine

Chapter 12 - A QUESTION OF TIME

[1] BBC Horizon television program Neanderthal

[2] Fred Harding, "Creation Revisited", 2013 Note: The Bible chronology used
throughout this trilogy of books follows closely of that presented by Barry
Setterfield (Ancient Chronology of Scripture, published in 1999. The Creation of
Adam occurred in 5810 BC (based upon the Alexandrian/Alexandrinus
Septuagint) and not in 4004 BC as presented by Bishop James Ussher's
calcuatation which was based on Bibles such as the King James Bible that used
the Masoretic Hebrew text.
[3] Ibid;
[4] Catastrophe DVD, presented by Tony Robinson and featuring scientific
experts, that investigates the history of natural disasters, from the planet's
beginnings to the present, putting a new perspective on our existence - that we
are the product of Catastrophe.
[5] Nils-Axel Morner, "The Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: a proposed
boundary-stratotype in Gothenburg, Sweden", Volume 5, Issue 4, pages 193-275,
December 1976, Article first published online: 16 JAN 2008 DOI: 10.1111/j.1502-
3885.1976.tb00263.x [6] Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences,
Geology 1995 [7] David Keys, "Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of
the Modern World", Arrow Books Ltd; New edition edition (6 July 2000)
[8] Heather Whipps, "How The Eruption of Thera Changed the World", Live
Science 24th February 2008

423
 [9] Brevard College, "Debate still rages over date of Thera eruption", Heritage
Daily 7th December, 2012
[10] J. P. Mac Lean, "Mastadon, Mammoth, Man" 1878 [11] Nahle, Nasif.
"Warming Periods in the Holocene Epoch", 22 March 2007.
[12] Oliver C. Farrington, "Neanderthal (Mousterian) Man", Curator of Geology
of the Field Museum of Natural History of Chicago, 1929
[13] J. Alan Holman Professor of Zoology and Geology, "Pleistocene Amphibians
and Reptiles in Britain and Europe", 1998
[14] Ibid;
[15] BBC News World, "Extreme World: Hot and Cold", 1st December 2010
[16] Vereshchagin, N.K. and Baryshnikov, G.F., "Quaternary mammalian
extinctions in Northern Eurasia;" in: Martin, P.S. and Klein, R.G. (eds),
Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, University of Arizona Press,
Tuscon, AZ, pp. 483-516, 1984; p. 492.
[17] lvarez-Lao, D., Kahlke, R., García, N., & Mol, D. (2009). The Padul
mammoth finds - On the southernmost record of Mammuthus primigenius in
Europe and its southern spread during the Late Pleistocene Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 278 (1-4), 57-70 DOI:
10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.04.011, Science Daily, 27th October, 2009
[18] Guthrie, R.D., "Mammals of the mammoth steppe as paleoenvironmental
indicators" Hopkins, D.M., Matthews, Jr., J.V., Schweger, C.E. and Young, S.B.
(eds), Paleoecology of Beringia, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 307-326,
1982; p. 313
[19] Whitley, "Ivory and the Elephant", Journal of the Philosophical Society of
Great Britain, XII (1910), p56. [20] Anthony Bond, "So archaeology IS child's
play! Almost intact carcass of 30,000-year-old woolly mammoth found by 11-
year-old boy", Daily Mail, 4th October 2012
[21] N. K. Vereshchagin, "The mammoth "cemeteries" of north-east Siberia",
Polar Record.Volume 17, Issue 106, January 1974, pp 3-12
[22] Stewart, J.M., "Frozen mammoths from Siberia bring the ice ages to vivid
life", Smithsonian 8, p. 68, 1977
[23] John Saeki, "Extinct mammoth tusks fill elephant ivory ban gap",
PHYSORG, 13th August, 2010
[24] Frank C. Hibben, "The Lost Americans", New York: Apollo Editions, 1961, p.
177
[25] W. F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", 2nd edition (University of Chicago
Press, 1955). PENSEE Journal IV
[26] NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona
[27] "Radiocarbon Calibration", University of Oxford, Version 134, 8th February,
2013
[28] NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory, University of Arizona [29] "Radiocarbon
Tree-Ring Calibration", http://www.radiocarbon.com
[30] W. F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", 2nd edition (University of Chicago
Press, 1955). PENSEE Journal IV
[31] K. D. Macario; P. R. S. Gomes; R. M. Anjos, "Reevaluation of dating results
for some 14C - AMS applications on the basis of the new calibration curves
available", Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol.38 no.1 São Paulo Mar. 2008

424
 [32] P. G. Blackwell and C. E. Buck, "Estimating radiocarbon calibration
curves", Bayesian Analysis (2008) 3, Number 2, pp. 225
[33] C. W. Ferguson, Tree-Ring Bulletin 29 , The Laboratory of Tree-Ring
Research, University of Arizona, 1969.
[34] Baillie, M.G.L. (1982), Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press)
[35] Edmund Schulman, "Bristlecone Pine, Oldest Living Things, National
Geographic" Vol 113, No 3, 3rd March 1958, p355
[36] Ronald M. Lanner, The Bristlecone Pine Book:A Natural History of the
World's Oldest Trees (Missoula, Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company,
2007), 84-89.
[37] Roger Highfield, "World's oldest living tree over 9,000 years old", National
Geographic Magazine, 18th April, 2008
[38] Rohl, David, A Test of Time, Arrow Books, London, Appendix C, 1996. see J.
Lasken, 1991 and B. Newgrosh, 1992
[39] D. D. Harkness, "Radiocarbon Dates from Antartica", N.E.R.C. Radiocarbon
Laboratory, Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre, Glasow, 1976
[40] Willard F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", Nobel lecture, 12th December 1960
[41] "A signature of cosmic-ray increase in AD 774-775 from tree rings in Japan"
Nature 486, 240-242 (14 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11123
[42] "Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High ", NASA News, 29th September 2009
[43] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
[44] Bucha V. Influence of the Earth's magnetic field on radiocarbon dating. 12th
Nobel Symposium, 1969, Uppsala Univesitet. Wiley Interscience Division. New
York. 1970. See also Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 1972, Volume 16, Issue 4,
pp 407-410
[45 ] "High concentration of atmospheric 14C during the Younger Dryas cold
episode", Nature 377, 414 - 417 (05 October 2002)
[46] Warren D. Allmon and Peter L. Nester, "Mastodon Paleobiology,
Taphonomy, and Paleoenvironment in the Late Pleistocene of New York State:
Studies on the Hyde Park, Chemung, and North Java Sites", Palaeontographica
Americana, Number 61, July 2008
[47] Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of
Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29.
[48] "Radiocarbon Dating and Archaeology", Beta Analytic labs
[49] Ibid;
[50] Ewen Callaway, "Archaeology: Date with history", Nature 485, 27-29 (03
May 2012) doi:10.1038/485027a. Interview with Tom Higham
[51] Ibid;
[52] Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid
Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of
the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; (see
also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8)
[53] Richard G. Fairbanks, "Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000
years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals",
Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 1781-1796
[54] T F G Higham, "AMS radiocarbon dating of ancient bone using

425
 ultrafiltration", Radiocarbon, Vol 48, Nr 2, 2006, p 179-195 [55] Hurley,
Patrick M. "How Old Is the Earth?", 1959 New York: Doubleday & Co.
[56] Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, "Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and
Practice", 2nd edition. 1996 London: Thames and Hudson. Pp. 111-162.
[57] Remi Van Haelst. "Natural deviations of the radiocarbon equilibrium in the
atmosphere", December 2001
[58 Nigel Reynolds, "Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament", The
Telegraph 11th July 2007
[59] Walton, John H. (2003). "Exodus, date of". In Alexander, T.D.; Baker, David
W. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. InterVarsity Press.
[60] Barry Setterfield, "Ancient Chronology in Scripture", 2007
[61] Hoeflmayer, Felix. "Thera, Tell el-Dab'a and the Egyptian New Kingdom:
Towards a Possible Solution?". 30 November 2011.
[62] William J Broad, "In the Mediterranean, Killer Tsunamis From an Ancient
Eruption", New York Times, 2nd November 2009
[63] Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" translated by Whiston, Chaper 4:1
[64] Anthony Garone, "Mesopotamia; Origin of Civilization"
[65] Van De Mieroop, Marc (2004). A History of the Ancient Near East.
Blackwell. p. 41. ISBN 0-631-22552-8.
[66] Dr. David Livingston, "The Date of Noah's Flood: Literary and
Archaeological Evidence", 2003
[67] Anthony Lyle, "Ancient History: A Revised Chronology, Volume 1", Author
House, 2012
[68] Charles Q. Choi, "The Many Mysteries of Neanderthals", LiveScience, 5th
November, 2009

Chapter 13 - NEANDERTHALS DISAPPEARANCE SOLVED

[1] Peter Martin, "The Secret Garden", The Sunday Times, 11 October 1998
[2] Barry Setterfield, "Ancient Chronology in Scripture", 1999 revised 2007
[3] Lee Rannals, "Sahara's Lush Greens Turned To Desert 5,000 Years Ago",
redOrbit.com 6th April 2013
[4] Jennifer Chu, "Research points to abrupt and widespread climate shift in the
Sahara 5,000 years ago", PhysOrg 5th April 2013
[5] In Judaism an angel (Hebrew: malak, plural malakim) is a messenger of God,
an angelic envoy or an angel in general who appears throughout the Hebrew
Bible, Rabbinic literature, and traditional Jewish liturgy.
[6] The Atrahasis Epic, named after its human hero, is a story from Mesopotamia
that includes both a creation and a flood account. It was composed as early as the
nineteenth century B.C.E. In its cosmology, heaven is ruled by the god Anu, earth
by Enlil, and the freshwater ocean by Enki. The poem begins with the lines
"When the gods like men bore the work and suffered the toil, the toil of the gods
was great, the work was heavy, the distress was much" Lambert, W.G. and
Millard, A.R. 1999 [1969]. According to Leick, Gwendolyn: A Dictionary of
Ancient Near Eastern Mythology (NY: Routledge, 1998), p. 85 Igigi was a term
used to refer to the gods of heaven in Sumerian mythology. Though sometimes

426
 synonymous with the term "Annunaki," in one myth the Igigi were the younger
gods who were servants of the Annunaki, until they rebelled and were replaced by
the creation of humans.
[7] Ibid;
[8] Ibid;
[9] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Enoch", 1917 Enoch 6:1
[10] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Jubilees", 1914 (Book of Jubilees 4:15)
[11] Matthew 22:30 NIV, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be
given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
[12] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Enoch", 1917 "And they were in all two hundred;
who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they
called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by
mutual imprecations upon it." (Enoch 6: 6)
[13] Cidália Duarte, "The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the
Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia,"
PNAS, vol. 96 no. 13 7604-7609
[14] Erik Trinkaus and Cidalia Duarte, "Who were the Neanderthals?", Scientific
American April 2000. See also: Lagar Velho - the Hybrid Child from Portugal
(donsmaps.com/lagar.html) [15] The Lapedo Child, BBC Learning / The Open
University , 2001 [16] There is a sacred building made of hewn blocks of stone on
summit of Mount Hermon. Known as Qasr Antar, it is the highest temple of the
ancient world and was documented by Sir Charles Warren in 1869. An
inscription on a limestone stele recovered by Warren from Qasr Antar was
translated by George Nickelsburg to read "According to the command of the
greatest a(nd) Holy God, those who take an oath (proceed) from here."
Nickelsburg connected the inscription with oath taken by the angels under
Semyaza who took an oath together, bound by a curse in order to take wives in
the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 6:6). Hermon was said to have become known as
"the mountain of oath" by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau.
[17] Burkert, Walter, Greek Religion, p. 125. Wiley-Blackwell, 1991. ISBN 978-0-
631-15624-6.
[18] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Enoch", 1917 "And these are the names of their
leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel,
Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, Asael , Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaq1el, Samsapeel,
Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens." (Enoch 6:7)
[19] Rosemary Guiley, The Encyclopedia of Demons and Demonology, Infobase
Publishing, May 12, 2010 = p. 21
[20] R.H. Charles, "The Book of Enoch", 1917 (1 Enoch 8:1-4)
[21] Ibid; (1 Enoch 10:8-9)
[22] Ibid; (1 Enoch 7: 4-6) [23] Andrea Thompson, "Neanderthals Were
Cannibals, Study Confirms", LiveScience, 4th December 2006. See also James
Owen, "Neandertals Turned to Cannibalism, Bone Cave Suggests", National
Geographic Magazine, 5th December 2006
[24] Jasper Griffin, "Greek Myth and Hesiod", J.Boardman, J.Griffin and O.
Murray (eds), The Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford University Press
(1986), page 88
[25] Fred Harding, "Creation Revisited", 2013 Kindle Book

427
 [26] Eben Harrell, "CSI Stone Age: Did Humans Kill Neanderthals?", Time
Magazine, 24th July, 2009
[27] Danny Vendramini, "Them and Us", Kardoorair Press (26 Dec 2011)
[28] Ibid;
[29] Ibid;
[30] Danny Vendramini, "Press Release 2", "Them and Us"
[31] Luke 8: 26-28, 30; See also Mark 5: 1-11 (NIV)
[32] Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A
New Translation, (Harper, San Francisco, 1996) p246-250. - Book of Giants,
"The two hundred angels choose animals on which to perform unnatural acts,
including, presumably, humans. 1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] donkeys,
two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] flock, two hundred goats, two
hundred [ . . . beast of the] field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] [ . . . ]
for miscegenation [ . . . ]"
[33] "The Book of Jasher", J.H. Parry & Company, 1887. (4:19-21) This "Book of
Jasher" was published in Hebrew in Venice in 1625, translated into English by
Moses Samuel and published by Mordechai Noah in New York in 1840. It was
Moses Samuel who first divided the work into chapter and verse (being 81
chapters. A second edition of this translation was published in Salt Lake City by
J. H. Parry & Company in 1887. Both editions have been reprinted and
republished several times. In 1954 Bible Corporation of America in Philadelphia
reprinted the 1840 edition. They also translated it from English into Italian,
Spanish, French and German for publication in those languages as well. There
has been some debate as to whether this Book of Jasher is the book mentioned in
the Bible or just a Midrash which some have speculated originated in the 13th
century. Certainly the book claims to be the same Book of Jasher mentioned in
the Bible.

428